Religious thought

[anomaly]

I've been debating for about a week on revleft about this: can one be a communist and still believe in God at the same time? A terribly orthodox Marxist says that 'The belief in God is not based on logic, communists reach conclusions with logic alone, not faith, and so you, anomaly, are not a communist'. Does this seem insane to anyone else? Telling a comrade that they 'are not a communist' (like it's some kind of club!) because of a belief? Now, this person goes on to say that he has complete faith in science, which I point out is illogical, because he is assuming that only the scientific method produces truth, revelation produces no truth. He also has faith that there is no God, of course, but saying that to an atheist will only produce hatred from him.

So what are your thoughts? Am I a communist even though I believe in God? Or am I committing the communist 'sin' of not using logic, but rather faith, to reach a conclusion?

 BTW, I'll inform you that I view myself as a 'general' theist. I do not adhere to any one religion, rather, I simply admit that God exists.

[P.O.U.M]

Your "friend" is an idiot.

Its ok to be a Marxist and believe in God, even adhere to a religion such as Christianity. Hell, Jesus was the first commie!

Socialism needs the friends it can get. Christians should not be excluded because they believe in God. As long as they believe in dialectics and the general program of Marxism. Also, you gotta keep Church and state completly seperated. Wether or not you want to believe in the afterlife and God is your own personal thing.

The last two or three chapters of Alan Wood's book "Marxism and the USA" is deals with this.

[anomaly]

I've viewed him as an idiot from the beginning. Have no fear, I am no Christian. I actually find it proposterous that God would choose such a diametric afterlife for us. Heaven and hell? Does God see everyone in black and white? If so, we are all going to burn for eternity! But I don't think this is the case. It's comforting to hear some reason once again. Orthodox Marxists have a way of enraging me with their dogmatic rambles.

It's rather odd that after the denial of God by many members of revleft the site should go down tonight. Perhaps God felt it right to punish them!

[P.O.U.M]

Orthodox Marxists have a way of enraging me with their dogmatic rambles.

Well most comrades here are considered "Orthodox Marxists" since we adhere to Trotsktyism and Leninism which really is the samething. But then Orthodox Marxism can be considered anything. Ive had a Maoist call me an Orthodox Kautskyite... whatever the hell that means.

[anomaly]

Basically, I view orthodox Marxism as the belief that Marx said no wrong. Marx said that only logic should be used to reach conclusions...therefore this is true. Anyone who does not adhere to this is not a Marxist (or, is not one of 'us'...that attitude)Socialism was said to be neccesary by Marx, therefore it is.

^That's orthodox Marxism. I'm very liberal with the writings of Marx, and I think he, like any person, was sometimes right and sometimes wrong (obviously more right than wrong...otherwise I certainly wouldn't think the way I do).

Hmm, perhaps I'm just not a Marxist. I have recognized that my views are considered decidedly anarchist. No matter.

[P.O.U.M]

Anarchists say no authority at all... NONE. Do you agree? That no one person has a say over another?

To me this contradicts democracy which anarchists advocate. They say they believe in direct democracy. But democracy itself means there is a minority and a majority. And the minority must succom to the majority. In most cases of democracy. But anarchists suggest that no one must succumb to any authority... no matter what. That one major problem of anarchism that I have.

[mir]

Actually, marxists use dialectics, not logic, to reach conclusions.  Also, anarchism is against marxism mostly in practical application because as Trotsky said Revolutions are the most authoritarian things imaginable, or something like that.  Although marxists believe in the withering away of the state and an end to exploitation, we do not believe in an end to authority.

[Morag]

You don't need to make any grand decisions about marxism or anarchism, based on some fool saying that you can't be a marxist because you think there might be a god. I know a family of staunch communists, the strongest people I've ever met in regards to theory and education, and their Catholics. Serious Catholics, too; they do Lent and only eat fish on Fridays and get that ashy thing on their foreheads and they even get the water placed on their kids heads when their really little (I know there's actually a term for that, isn't there?). Try telling them they can't b marxists and they will shove so much theory down your throat you'll gag. I've never seen someone who could argue them against it.

I'd suggest you tell buddy to piss off, or just leave. You can't win arguments which touch on god. Its impossible.

[P.O.U.M]

they even get the water placed on their kids heads when their really little (I know there's actually a term for that, isn't there?).

Baptism

[ckaihatsu]

You can't win arguments which touch on god. Its impossible.

*Anyone* can win arguments for disproving the existence of supernatural phenomena, including all religious beliefs -- it's easy:


The Riddle of Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

http://www.positiveatheism.org/index.shtml







___

YFIS Discussion Board
http://discussion.newyouth.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=598

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, fightbacknews.org, socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com, moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
http://community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

[Morag]

What I meant was that people who believe in a god or higher power are doing so without proof, generally (I suppose there are some cases where people believe they have proof), and they don't want to lose that faith. It's like a prize to them, their faith, and therefore logic isn't going to shake them of their belief. Now, obviously, materialism doesn't really have room for gods or idealism, but if anomoly already doesn't fully agree with Marx, he doesn't need to fully agree with Marx's writings. Although, I think my head just exploded.

"Whatever," is my point. Are you harming anyone, anomoly? No? Well then, proceed, sir. Yes? Well, we'll deal with you when the revolution comes, won't we? ;)  I guess I'm not an orthodox Marxist either, because, while I obviously don't even know the fundamentals of the largest religion in the world, I was brought up with a hero named Tommy Douglas, a methodist preacher who took the bible and translated it in a way that showed, indisputedly, that socialism was the answer. I guess I have respect for some religious people.

[ckaihatsu]

Yeah, absolutely, Morag. I don't let the issue of materialism lead me to become sectarian, but I won't hesitate to point out that it is correct, either.

[Holocaustpulp]

As I have mentioned in other posts, religious leaders (positions as high as Bishop and Cardinal in the Catholic church) have often been the fuel behind quasi-Marxist people's struggles in Latin America, and I'm sure it has happened elsewhere. To deny religion is to significantly limit potential communists and thus limit the movement itself, and this does not sacrifice Marxism at all for the sake of obtaining followers for the revolution is supposed to be a revolution of the people.

Marx offers that religion should wither with the state. This cannot be interpreted as "communists should attack religion because religion is anti-communist" (which it isn't). If us established communists were to attack religion it would itself nullify communist conditions because the minority would be imposing rules on the majority (the working and peasant class). Also, the "communist" who wrote the confused reply to anomaly probably doesn't realize that, too most, religion is the only palpable way to deal with economic, social, political, and even personal oppression.

- HP

[anomaly]

Originally posted by ckaihatsu
*Anyone* can win arguments for disproving the existence of supernatural phenomena, including all religious beliefs -- it's easy:


The Riddle of Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

http://www.positiveatheism.org/index.shtml







___

YFIS Discussion Board
http://discussion.newyouth.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=598

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, fightbacknews.org, socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com, moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
http://community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

This is also referred to as the problem of evil, no? The Christian religion deals with this easily enough, by saying that 'original sin' of humans made God take away our perfect world. He abandoned us, but only for a time, according to Christians.

I think God's gift to us of free will deals with the problems of evil quite well. God had two choices with us: either control us but give us perfection, or give us freedom but also free will. Apparently God did in fact give us free will. Evil is the result of an imperfect human world with free will. Perhaps this world then becomes a test for our existence in the world after this. Given free will, our actions show our true character, making judgement possible. As well as countering the problem of evil, that would certainly do damage to the criticism of idealism that it makes one not concentrate on the here and now, but rather on the afterlife. If this life determine's one's afterlife, then forgetting about this life would do one much damage, and thus is not encouraged by God.

[ckaihatsu]

> This is also referred to as the problem of evil, no? The Christian religion
> deals with this easily enough, by saying that 'original sin' of humans made
> God take away our perfect world. He abandoned us, but only for a time,
> according to Christians.


That's a cute story, but what sort of sick, psychotic deity would make the entire lineage of humanity suffer for the "original sin" of Adam & Eve?


>
> I think God's gift to us of free will deals with the problems of evil quite
> well. God had two choices with us: either control us but give us perfection,
> or give us freedom but also free will. Apparently God did in fact give us free
> will. Evil is the result of an imperfect human world with free will.


Okay, this is basically the Deist position, but it begs the question of responsibility -- wouldn't an omniscient deity forsee the emergence of evil from free will? Just how benevolent and caring is that?! (And that brings us back to the Riddle of Epicurus.)


> Perhaps
> this world then becomes a test for our existence in the world after this.
> Given free will, our actions show our true character, making judgement
> possible.


Okay, so then the existence of a deity becomes moot. Given our existence and our ability of free will, why would a deity be necessary?


> As well as countering the problem of evil, that would certainly do
> damage to the criticism of idealism that it makes one not concentrate on the
> here and now, but rather on the afterlife. If this life determine's one's
> afterlife, then forgetting about this life would do one much damage, and thus
> is not encouraged by God.
>


Sure, but that's a gigantic "if" -- how can anyone presuppose the "afterlife"? Sounds like a giant fucking hoax-mindfuck-powerplay to me....