|
ok here's another way to think about Marxism vs. Christianity: is "violent revolution" a goal of Marxism, or is it simply a means? in my view, it's the latter. the goal of Marxism is a more equitable restructuring of society, and in many historical cases Marxists have used violence as a means of advancing that goal, but the violence, in and of itself, is not one of the core values of Marxism. and, regardless of how one interprets the words of Jesus himself, there's no question that Christians have historically engaged in acts of violence and the seizure of power to advance what they saw as the goals of Christianity, which often involved restructuring of societies. and i think many of them would argue that the violence was not the goal in and of itself, but simply the means. so we have two broad belief sets, both of which are strong enough to be a deep part of people's identities, and both of which have many adherents who, historically speaking, engaged in violence for the direct purpose of advancing the goals of their belief set. clearly, a willingness to use violence to restructure a society is not one of the major incompatibilities. the question becomes then whether or not the goals are compatible.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
Christ as recorded in the Bible and the extracanonical Gospels, the only one we have access to, was literally and specifically saying that violent means to effect political change in Roman Judea were inadmissible. He is recorded saying this many ways, in great detail, and at great personal cost. He is textually contrasted against a likely violent revolutionary, Barabbas, and a disciple (Peter) who violently lashes out to protect Jesus when Jesus is arrested. This is a major theme of the Gospels, which were written specifically to contrast the Christian approach with the violent-revolutionary approach, which famously ended with the absolute desolation of Roman Judea. The factual failure of many historical Christians to uphold this standard does not change what the Gospel message is, much like how the factual failures of many Marxist governments to prioritize workers' power does not change the Marxist message. Ohtori Akio fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Nov 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:ok here's another way to think about Marxism vs. Christianity: I haven't read enough to speak up at length on this stuff but I agree with this take.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
For what it's worth: Saint Paisios the Athonite had this to say: "Personally, if the communists weren't atheist, if they didn't hunt Christ, I would agree with them. It's good for the plots of land, the factories, to belong to everyone; not for one to be hungry while someone else is throwing away food." Source.Earwicker posted:I'm not suggesting he did, i'm simply saying that the Bible was manipulated by forces that opposed violent revolution, and very specifically violent revolution against the Roman Empire. Keromaru5 fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Nov 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
Keromaru5 posted:For what it's worth: Saint Paisios the Athonite had this to say: "Personally, if the communists weren't atheist, if they didn't hunt Christ, I would agree with them. It's good for the plots of land, the factories, to belong to everyone; not for one to be hungry while someone else is throwing away food." Source. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
Tillich posted:God can never look at something as though it were not carried by his power of being, that is, his will. God always wills what he knows. I actually came to this conclusion on my own! In fact I drew the conclusion that God only his to be omniscient and omnipotence follows automatically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 00:56
|
|
|
Prurient Squid posted:I actually came to this conclusion on my own! In fact I drew the conclusion that God only his to be omniscient and omnipotence follows automatically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
Prurient Squid posted:Also St Augustine seems to anticipate Descartes as well. If Tillich is to be believed. He dedicates one of his books “to Rene.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
Descartes' indebtedness to Augustine was observed by people in Descartes' own lifetime. He was well trained in the Scholastic philosophy of his time and France in the 17th Century experienced a huge revival of Augustine's thought which led to the pretty extreme Jansenist movement. There's a fairly famous book studying their thought together. https://www.amazon.com/Descartes-Augustine-Stephen-Menn/dp/0521012848
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 01:30
|
|
|
Keromaru5 posted:For what it's worth: Saint Paisios the Athonite had this to say: "Personally, if the communists weren't atheist, if they didn't hunt Christ, I would agree with them. It's good for the plots of land, the factories, to belong to everyone; not for one to be hungry while someone else is throwing away food." Source. None of the Gospels were actually written by anyone who had ever met Jesus. Mark, assuming you follow the most commonly accepted dates, was written 35-40 years after Jesus' crucifixion, Matthew and Luke 50-55 years after, and John 55-75 years after. Obviously those are guesses but the starting point of all Gospel text is at best written and spoken accounts from people who met Jesus, not from any of his preserved writing. It was really only the fear of no longer having those living witnesses to tell the stories that prompted the writing in the first place. And it also must be stated that we don't have much if any text from the Gospels until 75-100 years after their composition, and even the earliest versions we have show textual deviations that cannot be explained by scribal error. There was an active and ongoing attempt from the earliest days to represent Jesus' views according to whatever the local communities viewed as most correct and while I don't think that they necessarily tried to portray him inaccurately, it's impossible to be objective. For comparison, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated 54 years ago. We have access to voluminous writing and videos of him delivering his message. Look at what has happened to his message, how watered down it has become. Then look at how he has been basically canonized in secular society despite being one of the most reviled men in his own time. I've seen polling which says that during his life's he was roughly as popular as Nixon was on the eve of Nixon's impeachment. Barring some improbable recovery of 1st century documents, it isn't something that we will ever know for sure, but I have a hard time reading the Gospels and not seeing Jesus as someone who was not deeply challenging to the existing social order, especially regarding the treatment of the poorest and most marginalized in society. I don't think he wanted to be a king but the idea that he was cool with the current rulers continuing to rule seems to fly in the face of both the Jewish authorities and the Romans viewing him as a genuine threat to their power, much in the same way they viewed John the Baptist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 05:36
|
|
|
All of that is clearly a lot of why Gabriel was so painstaking about textual integrity to Muhammad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 05:46
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:None of the Gospels were actually written by anyone who had ever met Jesus. If anything, I'd argue that the core of Jesus' message about Rome is that nothing they do actually matters. "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." And the Resurrection is his proof--he himself is the one with ultimate power over life and death, and the ultimate judge of the living and dead, so what's Caesar compared to that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 06:47
|
|
|
Killingyouguy! posted:OK but like if someone's human rights are taken away is the solution to just not be attached to your human rights or I've heard several Plum Village dharma teachers encourage practitioners to be careful about the Buddha's teaching on attachment because a misunderstanding of it can lead to more suffering, not less. This is especially the case when someone is suffering from something like loss, violence, poverty. It is not advised that practitioners of engaged Buddhism tell suffering people to "just be non-attached," or "just dwell in the ultimate reality," because that isn't helpful. In fact, the practice is meant to give the practitioner equanimity so that they can be with the suffering, to engage with it, and ultimately to transform it. My understanding of the Buddha's teachings on attachment/non-attachment is that it is a basic observation that implies some prescription, but it cannot accurately be reduced to a blanket prescription to be non-attached to everything. That's already an impossibility because then one becomes attached to non-attachment. The Buddha's insight is that attachment is a source of suffering. When you are attached to something, you must go where it goes. If it goes somewhere unpleasant, so also go through the unpleasantness. This has obvious lessons that if you can be unattached to something that isn't all that important, that's probably a good thing. But when you're talking about something as important as the suffering of people brought upon by violence, oppression, or poverty, disengagement and detachment from their pain is not advised. The Plum Village monastics do encourage non-attachment to views, though. I think a lot of this is motivated by their experience being in an intentional community, trying to live and work together and accomplish their spiritual mission while also living simply where nearly everything is held in commune. I remember one monk talking about this. He described himself as having been a very opinionated architect prior to becoming a monastic. He made it part of his practice to intentionally not speak up during meetings if the topic was about building and architectural plans for the monastery, because he knew that he could be overbearing on that topic. I think the lesson he and the other monastics are trying to teach is that if you want to live in community, you have to be flexible with your views, because (a)you may be wrong, and (b)even when you're right, the cost of your obstinacy may be worse than the benefit of that view. Nessus posted:I don't think Christianity (or Buddhism or whatever) is incompatible with using Marx's ideas to analyze society and economic relations. The distinction here is between Marx, the theorist (who was a real big thinker, for sure) and "Marxism" the constellation of ideologies which, for instance, were popularly centered on the Soviet Union in Martin Luther King Jr.'s period. I also think there's an important distinction to be made between communism and Marxism (and Marxist-derived ideologies). Communism is older and broader than Marxism, even though the two are often conflated as the same thing in the popular understanding. But I've heard it said more than once that the early Christian community written about in the New Testament describes a communist ideal: a community bound together voluntarily, without class distinction, where the needs of the even the most vulnerable are addressed, and where all the possessions are shared in commune.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 07:55
|
|
|
I choose to interpret the Matrix as an allegory for Augustine theology. edit: Except then the message would be that it doesn't matter if we live inside a simulation because certainty resides within the soul. Which really if you think about it is the position taken by Cypher, the traitor. So I guess The Matrix is an anti-augustine film? Prurient Squid fucked around with this message at 11:15 on Nov 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 10:55
|
|
|
I have no problem being both a Quaker and a Socialist. Some Leftwingers dislike that I have a religious faith, but that is their problem, not mine. But I really do not get how anyone can read the message of Jesus and end up voting Tory/Conservative. I honestly do not understand how those two philosophies can co-exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 12:21
|
|
|
Easily. The argument is that Jesus' teachings don't truly matter. What matters is the Church or social institution. You could have a bunch of people dedicated to Bel-Shamharroth the flameless sun, and they'd still define themselves around the social side of it, as opposed to trying to murder the false sun. Ultimately the teachings that get emphasised are the ones that people follow and those can be changed by the folks in charge. The structure ends up nattering more than the divinity or even the message. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Nov 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 13:25
|
|
|
I'm thinking of taking an Open University course in philosophy. Now harming in browsing at any rate. edit: Naturally, this would be a big test of my brain. edit: One starts in October next year. edit: There's an easier course that starts in February and October. Probably a better bet. Doesn't mention the word philosophy but you've got to learn to crawl before you learn to walk. I've never studied arts and humanities at university level before. Only maths! edit: Arrrrrgh, the cost of the course is more than twice my yearly income. drat. Not very "open" is it! Prurient Squid fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Nov 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 14:24
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Easily. The argument is that Jesus' teachings don't truly matter. What matters is the Church or social institution. You could have a bunch of people dedicated to Bel-Shamharroth the flameless sun, and they'd still define themselves around the social side of it, as opposed to trying to murder the false sun. Alternately instead of caring about the what-ness of Jesus we could care about the that-ness of Jesus. That he lived preached and was crucified.  Which at the end of the day even in historical Jesus scholarship like the conclusions of Jesus seminar is about all we can say with certainty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
So the formation of christian doctrines is determined by the pull of different forces. Christianity vs. Anti-christianity The attempt by heady intellectual figures to reconcile Christianity with philosophy The revolt by the representatives of the "simple folk" against the doctrines of the intellectuals The need to reconcile all of the above at the expense of condemnations and exclusions
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
And the suitability of the symbols to be accurate to the substance of the Christian experience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
And I think his thinking on all of that also evolves out of his thinking about “the battle for tradition” that shows up first in the Socialist Decision.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Alternately instead of caring about the what-ness of Jesus we could care about the that-ness of Jesus. That he lived preached and was crucified. I mean we only have a few scant references. Even if he didn't exist as the gospels imply, it's still fun to imagine. The thing is that the person would always have been different from every retelling. Even when we have loads of written records it's next to impossible to tell the person behind all of it. The thing is that the community does matter, but so does the changes that the community made, or parts of the community made, to itself and to the outside world. Again, I would personally argue that many bits have been altered, or reinterpreted, due to a desire to become more socially acceptable to Roman societal mores. I really do need to do more reading on this though tbh, but from my brief read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
In my personal read, one of the primary changes to Jesus' teachings is emphasizing him as the Son of God, as opposed to his teaching of universal divine filiation (and by implication, the universal brotherhood of man). This casts Christianity as a religion that the post-Hellenic Roman world could understand more clearly; we worship this Jesus guy, the Son of God. This makes Christianity a more suitable state religion: if your state-sponsored clerics say something is the will of God and His Son, then you ought to do it, even when it is in contradiction to the universal brotherhood of man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
That’s a fight with logocentrism too. And it’s a big fight. That why Jesus get called “Lord” or “King” and the metaphor of monarchy gets used. “But there were other reactions against the Logos Christology, which was introduced by the Apologists – and already, somehow, by the Fourth Gospel – and which found in Origen its greatest and most important expression. Again the laymen were the ones who revolted, not only against Origen but against the whole Logos Christology. The laymen, the simple ones were not interested in the cosmological implications of the Logos concept; they wanted to have God Himself on earth in Christ. This group was called the monarchianists, from monarchia , meaning one man's rule. They wanted to have only one ruler, one God, not three, as they felt the Logos Christology would make it. They emphasized, against the Logos as a second God, the "monarchy" of the Father. We can say that this movement was a monotheistic reaction against the tri- or duo-theistic danger of the Logos doctrine. The Logos doctrine was dangerous because it hypostasized the Son beside God, and the Spirit a God beside all of them. A man named Theodotus, a craftsman from Rome, thought that Jesus was a man upon whom the Divine Spirit came in baptism, giving him the power of his Messianic vocation. But this did not make him God. Therefore these people from the school of Theodotus were very much interested – as were many later, especially Protestants of the 19th century – in those passages of the Gospel dealing with Jesus as man. There is perhaps a connection (Theodotus) and a group in Asia Minor called the Alogoi, who denied the doctrine of the Logos. And since the doctrine of the Logos appeared in the Fourth Gospel, they rejected it. They tried to find the true text emphasized the literal interpretation against the allegoric. They were predecessors of many later movements, of the Alexandrian school which fought against some issues, at least, of the high Christology; and they were predecessors of some trends in Rome which always were on the side of the Antiochean school; and they were predecessors of modern liberal theology. They all emphasized the humanity of Jesus over against the Logos becoming God. We call this the adoptionistic or the dynamic Christology, where the man Jesus is adopted and the Logos or the Spirit fills him--but that is all; he is not God Himself. This is the one wing of the Monarchic monotheistic reaction against the Logos Christology. And this is not something of the past; it is something which we have to face always in the whole history of Christianity.” And you can see his beef with Barth in all that again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
I apologize for interrupting, I had an experience today that I need to talk about, and I think the semi-anonymity of this thread will help. I’m not sure who to talk to about this in real life, yet. I want to start out with a disclaimer: I no longer look for signs, practice spiritual exercises for the sake of mystical experiences, or try to read into coincidences. Good spiritual reading and education, plus having a fuller understanding of my mental health challenges, has led me here. I was back in my hometown today for some errands. I had plenty of time so I decided to visit a church I frequently attended for mass back when I lived there. It was wonderful, it’s a big sanctuary and I had it all to myself. I sat down up front and wasn’t really actively praying, just enjoying the company of the sanctuary, the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle, and the silence. I started to get upset, though. I felt like I was home, that this place, the Catholic Church, is where I’m meant to be. But at the same time I am having serious struggles with some of the Church’s moral teachings. I’m not sure if I can stay in this community. Then I start to pray: “God, it would be so easy just to leave the Church. In fact, I wonder if the only reason I’m still Catholic is because I am afraid of death and damnation. But is fear a good enough reason to stay?” I finish my prayer and I hear this rumbling noise; it starts small and then the walls, the doors, and the ceiling all start to violently shake. The ground stayed still. I was terrified, between freeze or flight I froze. It lasted maybe 15-20 seconds and as soon as it stopped I BOOKED it out of the sanctuary and out of the church. My heart was pounding and I had to catch my breath. Outside there was no sign of inclement weather, no rain, no high winds, nothing. It wasn’t an earthquake. I don’t know what the heck it was. I don’t believe God supernaturally shook the church, but it’s hard not to think that whatever happened God knew I was going to be there and experience it, knowing what I was going to pray and when. It goes against my theology and spirituality to read into this, to think that God spoke to me in such a profound way. On the other hand, if God blessed me by speaking that loudly, it would be a sin not to listen. Of course, it could be that they have an awful HVAC system and it just does that every now and then. Just a coincidence. But the timing… the timing of the prayer and the answer to it, I don’t know what to think. Sorry, I know this sounds like a whole lot of “magical thinking” but in the lives of the saints we hear about seemingly miraculous occurrences such as this. Im not a saint, but maybe this was God’s way of saying “I’m not done with you yet.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 02:43
|
|
|
A few weeks ago now, I had a long conversation with a priest, not of the Catholic church. I related some of my history looking for the right church, how there have been many places which sit right with my rational idea of what a community ought to be, but when I visited them caused a great deal of tension within my heart, as if something was just wrong and I felt fear of them. In his opinion, this was the work of the Spirit and I should continue paying attention to my feelings in this way. I have had more explicitly mystical experiences, nothing I would like to share. But paying attention to your conscience and feelings, to me, is step 1 of life in the Spirit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
Thirteen Orphans posted:I apologize for interrupting, I had an experience today that I need to talk about, and I think the semi-anonymity of this thread will help. I’m not sure who to talk to about this in real life, yet. I think religious experiences are very personal and specific. Whether someone else sitting beside you would have experienced the same thing, making it factually more 'real', doesn't really matter. You experienced that thing, so it's up to you to find out what it means. I also have a lot of issues with the teachings of the Church but I don't think I could leave it altogether, any more than I would disown my brother because he does things I don't agree with. That's a bit surface-level but - no other church feels right to me. It's internal. That means that I am quietly a very bad Catholic by traditional measures, but part of how I'm a bad Catholic is that I don't care about a lot of traditional measures so it all works out for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
That does sound like a legitimate mystical experience. Which way do you take it? From your description it sounds a little ambiguous. I have had exactly one of them that wasn't one of those little eerie moments and it involved sitting in front of a statue of the Buddha and feeling guided to pick up a few pieces of broken glass and throw them out appropriately. But it's one of those things where, once you know, you know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 06:18
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:A few weeks ago now, I had a long conversation with a priest, not of the Catholic church. I related some of my history looking for the right church, how there have been many places which sit right with my rational idea of what a community ought to be, but when I visited them caused a great deal of tension within my heart, as if something was just wrong and I felt fear of them. In his opinion, this was the work of the Spirit and I should continue paying attention to my feelings in this way. In general it's safe and advisable that if you get bad vibes in an immediate situation, you should heed that as a warning and bug out asap. It's not 100% reliable but you won't do much if any harm to treat it as such, and it's reliable enough that you will absolutely save yourself a lot of grief. On the other hand, if you feel God is telling you to take some specific action (i.e. something beyond the general commands in the scriptures), you'd better verify that in as many ways as possible - trusted friends/mentors, careful searching and praying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 06:35
|
|
|
Winifred Madgers posted:In general it's safe and advisable that if you get bad vibes in an immediate situation, you should heed that as a warning and bug out asap. It's not 100% reliable but you won't do much if any harm to treat it as such, and it's reliable enough that you will absolutely save yourself a lot of grief. I definitely feel the idea is to pay attention to your feelings and conscience, to be with them, to feel them quite strongly, rather than just to be commanded by them. A fear of a particular place or context might not mean one specific universal thing, but it's something to find sufficient safety from in the moment - and then to process in detail. I have never had a mystical experience I would describe as a specific call to action. It has always been something partly reflective of my inner state, something that calls me to more processing and consideration and with many actual conclusions. I think part of why I was open to mysticism, coming from a skeptical background, is that it's still very valid if you view these experiences as what your mind is churning out for you. It's still something to reflect on and accept as containing something that is true to you already. I just ended up concluding that God was at work there, too. I really ought to get a mentor so I have someone to consult if a stronger experience occurs to me. That'll probably be easier once I settle into a denomination.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 11:06
|
|
|
If you have anxiety about being chased by a tiger then the anxiety is legitimate. If you have anxiety over something abstract in your mind that can't be problem solved then it's important not to assign meaning and look for a solution because that teaches the brain to engage in a kind of pseudo problem solving called "compulsions" that just makes things worse. End of intervention. edit: You are the CEO of your own brain and you have the final say on which of your thoughts have meaning and which are "just thoughts". End of intervention. Prurient Squid fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Nov 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
Prurient Squid posted:So the formation of christian doctrines is determined by the pull of different forces. Bar Ran Dun posted:That’s a fight with logocentrism too. And it’s a big fight. That why Jesus get called “Lord” or “King” and the metaphor of monarchy gets used. This is two different people's notes on exactly the same pages from A History of Christian Thought. edit: Oh wait, was Bar Ran Dun quoting?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 14:44
|
|
|
I believe so. Though no idea who is being quoted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
#2 is from Traditionalism and Radicalism in the History of Christian Thought by Paul Tillich, at least
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 20:04
|
|
|
I just read that the Greek philosophy extends from Thales to Proclus. Proclus was a proto-Hegel who thought in triads. I just checked and that's a span of about 1100 years! Them Greeks sure were philosophising for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
I'm sorry for this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
Prurient Squid posted:edit: Oh wait, was Bar Ran Dun quoting? Yeah I’ve got a digital copy of that one it’s easy to just search and copy paste the relevant section. I also just discovered phone screen shot OCR is now super easy to do. So instead of being a sad sack about not having the time to transcribe things from other books I can just do that. Once they are unpacked 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
Ohtori Akio posted:I think part of why I was open to mysticism, coming from a skeptical background, is that it's still very valid if you view these experiences as what your mind is churning out for you. It's still something to reflect on and accept as containing something that is true to you already. This is why I enjoy collecting divination methods even though i am 100% irreligious. We evolved to tell stories. We'll make stories out of anything, including randomly selected tarot cards and whatever's been stewing in the back of my mind. And like a therapist, the random aspect to it (I do not think for a second the cards have been ordered by external forces or anything) gets you to approach the situation from a different angle, even if it's not a perfect fit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
The Holy Spirit made me buy something on Amazon again. The Divine Names by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
Killingyouguy! posted:This is why I enjoy collecting divination methods even though i am 100% irreligious. We evolved to tell stories. We'll make stories out of anything, including randomly selected tarot cards and whatever's been stewing in the back of my mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 22:03
|
|