Democracy and Christianity

[Anathema]

The previous thread and all of its posts have magicly vanished, so I'll respond to what I remember of it.

TMA, you said that the bible is by nature apolitical and that it tells people should not rebel against their leaders unless freedom of preaching is impaired. That I agree with, I do remember a few verses supporting that. But I used the word christianity and , and by that I mean the social/cultural phenomenon it is usually refers to, and not a strict interpretetation of the bible. For example, Thomas of Aquino reasoned that it was okay for people to revolt against a ruler that treats them without respect, and you won't hear many people say otherwise.

I myself don't believe that Christianity played an essential part in establishing democracy. Many great thinkers abandoned christianity or rejected the form in wich most people believed in.

[TMA_1]

the christian philosopher you mentioned was extremely political, helped in forming new political rules for the catholic church in it's own silly reformation. I dont think he represents christianity.lol

I see what you are meaning, social aspects of christianity, not spiritual ones or ones coming out of the bible.

In that case, anything can be tainted. Islam for example was tainted for the ottoman empire's own ends, and turned political.

[Leto le Juste]

I dont think he represents christianity.lol

Saint Thomas d'Aquin doesn't represent christianity? ??? :O

[Edric O]

A very good case could be made to say that Christianity directly implies an egalitarian society with common ownership of property - especially given the teachings of the New Testament and the communist societies in which the early Christians lived.

However, that would be ignoring the fact that Christianity is a religion, with a spiritual message, not a secular one. Christian moral values demand communism or a communist-style society, but to use Christianity to justify a certain political system could be dangerous and might result in very unpleasant consequences. Religion shouldn't be mixed with politics because it tends to give a "divine" aura to something that is not divine. There is no divine right of kings, nor is there a divine right of anything else.

[TMA_1]

bingo edric. Remember though that the communal way of life is not in any way political. I mean it in itself has political overtones, but each community is small in christian communes, and leaves little to be desired by overtaking such a commune for pollitical reasons.

As for christianity's cultural/social implications. By the time it turns into a social movement, it really isnt spiritual anymore, and since it isnt spiritual, it isnt really christianity is it? since christianity focuses on worshiping in spirit, as God is spirit. Because of this we look at the world as evil, and try not to place our moral values in the physical realm. Our bodies are just conduits of the holy spirit, sot he spiritual is unleashed to the world.

way more complicated than that, but that is basically what I am getting at. By the time the "social gospel" and "social christianty" comes out to the public, it is no longer christianity in it's pure form but a currupt version.

[Caid Ivik]

There are divine rights for freedom, responsibility and life itself, EdricO. Problem with communism is that it doesn't approve anything divine. For communism is society something of higher importance than individual; and that's a though widerspruch against christianity. The concept of revolution and centralized socialization, those are against all three divine rights we have. You lose the freedom to do what you want with your wealth (I can give it to charity and state takes it from me?), you lose responsibility for your acts (which are now considered as acts of "society") and if you dare to fight against progressors during the revolution, you lose also your life.

[Leto le Juste]

Edric do you think Chrstianity's aim is to lead the World? If you think so, you have to read the Bible more preciselly because the message of the "New Testament" is : Love humankind as you love God, each people (chrsitian but also no-christian) is important for Father.

I think you mix 2 different things: Christianity doesn't want to be political but it have to live in a political system. You can't be apolitic, it is impossible (except to be alone without human presence).

[Caid Ivik]

Don't love humanKIND, love humans themselves, as persons. Each one you lay your influence on. That's testimony of Bible.

[filecore]

This is one curious thing about Christianity: it is a composite, pan-theistic religion.  That is in contradiction of what most Christians believe.  For one, you combine the New and Old testaments and take what you want from each, where technically the Old Testament is the Jewish holy book and is a different god (or a different aspect of god), hence the name CHRISTianity.

Okay the part about pan-theistic was just a dig about the internal schizophrenia of having a holy trinity as a single entity, and I won't get into that just now because it'd be horribly off-topic.

But yes, Christianity has grown not to be just a set of beliefs, but to embed itself in the moral fabric of (particularly) Western societies and hence put its values and judgements into the social and political structure.  While this may not be bad (after all, a lot of the "laws" in the bible are simple common sense or good manners), it seems to give governments (*cough*GeorgeWBush*cough*) the feeling that they are in some way supported by God and the church and that makes them holy crusaders of some sort.

That is frankly a load of complete bollocks.  The authority of Western governments is - well, should be - completely seperate from the church and the use of any god should not be an excusing factor for the actions of a government.  Also an association with any religion cannot and should not define the rights of the individual.  It is time for any reasonable state to grow the hell up and start acting in the best interests of its populace.

And to finally go off-topic:

I notice that the quote "A specter is haunting todays Europe: specter of communism" is in somebody's sig.  May I just point out (and I'm sure I'm not the first) that Russia was not a communist state.  These things should be counted from actions, not words.  If a state calls itself a communism and acts as a dictatorship, then it is a dictatorship.  If a state acts as a dictatorship but calls itself a democracy, it is still a dictatorship.  Names don't define reality, actions do.  Think about that for both Russia and the USA.

[Edric O]

There are divine rights for freedom, responsibility and life itself, EdricO.

I won't argue with that because I don't understand what concept of "divine right" you are using here. I was talking about "divine right" as in the "divine right of kings": people justifying a certain political system by saying "we have God's endorsement!"

Problem with communism is that it doesn't approve anything divine.

It doesn't approve of anything "divine" in politics, Caid. This was big news 150 years ago, when the Manifesto was first written, but today everyone does it. It's called separation of Church and State.

For communism is society something of higher importance than individual

Wrong. Society is made up of individuals, and social actions are the product of individual actions. Society is not separate from the individual any more than a building is separate from the bricks that make it up.

The purpose of communism is to bring the maximum benefit to the maximum possible number of individuals.

The concept of revolution and centralized socialization, those are against all three divine rights we have.

Revolution is against "divine rights"? Funny, I didn't know we had the divine right to be oppressed. Or the divine right to be exploited, or the divine right to be enslaved...

As for "centralized socialization", you'll have to be a little more specific. Are you talking about stalinist oppression and perversion of communism, or a real socialist/communist system? In the latter case, I need to remind you that this is democratic socialization. The same as the one practiced by the early Christians.

You lose the freedom to do what you want with your wealth

No, that's what happens in capitalism, when a sizable portion of the product of your labour becomes your boss's property.

Communism institutes social property over the things that are socially produced - which are the vast majority of the goods produced in a modern society (how many things these days are made by one man working alone?). Instead of all the products of your labour becoming the property of one man (your boss), they are shared by all, and you decide democratically what to do with them.

responsibility for your acts (which are now considered as acts of "society")

Actually, that's a plain lie. Where did you get that idea from? If you want me to argue against something, then provide some of your own arguments to support your ideas, rather than pulling them out of thin air.

and if you dare to fight against progressors during the revolution, you lose also your life.

The revolution doesn't have to be violent. But if it comes to that, people who take up arms (on both sides) have a certain chance to lose their lives, of course...

[Edric O]

Edric do you think Chrstianity's aim is to lead the World?

Of course not! Didn't you read my post? I said the exact contrary! That Christianity is a spiritual matter, which should not be confused with secular matters like politics.

I fully agree with TMA, and with you.

This is one curious thing about Christianity: it is a composite, pan-theistic religion.  That is in contradiction of what most Christians believe.  For one, you combine the New and Old testaments and take what you want from each, where technically the Old Testament is the Jewish holy book and is a different god (or a different aspect of god), hence the name CHRISTianity.

Jesus was a Jew. The same as all his initial followers. He did not come to preach an entirely new religion of an entirely new God, but to change the old laws and reveal to us a different side of God.

We do not take what we want from the Testaments - we take them as a whole. And if God is an omnipresent and omniscient entity, he can certainly have a complex nature and several different "sides". Remember, God is not human.

Okay the part about pan-theistic was just a dig about the internal schizophrenia of having a holy trinity as a single entity, and I won't get into that just now because it'd be horribly off-topic.

As I said, keep in mind that this is an infinite, omnipresent and omniscient entity that you're talking about. He doesn't have to conform to human personality standards.

But yes, Christianity has grown not to be just a set of beliefs, but to embed itself in the moral fabric of (particularly) Western societies and hence put its values and judgements into the social and political structure.  While this may not be bad (after all, a lot of the "laws" in the bible are simple common sense or good manners), it seems to give governments (*cough*GeorgeWBush*cough*) the feeling that they are in some way supported by God and the church and that makes them holy crusaders of some sort.

That is frankly a load of complete bollocks.  The authority of Western governments is - well, should be - completely seperate from the church and the use of any god should not be an excusing factor for the actions of a government.  Also an association with any religion cannot and should not define the rights of the individual.  It is time for any reasonable state to grow the hell up and start acting in the best interests of its populace.

I completely and absolutely agree. This is also the point I have been trying to make.

And to finally go off-topic:

I notice that the quote "A specter is haunting todays Europe: specter of communism" is in somebody's sig.  May I just point out (and I'm sure I'm not the first) that Russia was not a communist state.  These things should be counted from actions, not words.  If a state calls itself a communism and acts as a dictatorship, then it is a dictatorship.  If a state acts as a dictatorship but calls itself a democracy, it is still a dictatorship.  Names don't define reality, actions do.  Think about that for both Russia and the USA.

That is obviously true. I am the resident communist of this forum ( :) ) and I have explained this many times before. First of all, the Soviet Union & co. never claimed to be "communist states" (that would have been a much too obvious lie, not to mention how the term "communist state" is in itself an oxymoron). They claimed to be socialist states, and they also claimed to be highly democratic (since democracy and socialism are inseparable; after all, socialism means economic democracy). But they were neither socialist nor democratic - just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not democratic, no matter how it chooses to call itself.

Communists have denounced the crimes of stalinism for a very long time, starting in the 1930's. See the Trotsky Internet Archive.

Oh, and as a final note, the quote in Caid's sig is from the introduction to the Communist Manifesto, and it is better understood when put in context:

"A spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party 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."

- Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, 1848

[TMA_1]

remember filecore. God is one, with three manifestations. Each performing different tasks in one Diety.

Edric is right that it isnt a matter of how you see things, but is on a level higher than you can imagine.

If you actually READ the old testament, God is mentioned many times as Elohim. This is translated to "Gods" plural. If you know ancient languages, you will know that the "royal we" as many people like to say it is in the old testament, wasent used until later forms of greek liturature.

THere was no use of we as an amplifier of power or that kind of thing in the hebrew. many christians believe this is an obvious sign of the trinity. Not only this but the trinity is mentioned in our beliefs in the psalms and proverbs, as well as other places.

You could argue differently, but this boils down to studying scripture, so unless you want to debate somewhere else, it would be hard to argue.lol

[Caid Ivik]

I won't argue with that because I don't understand what concept of "divine right" you are using here. I was talking about "divine right" as in the "divine right of kings": people justifying a certain political system by saying "we have God's endorsement!"

It doesn't approve of anything "divine" in politics, Caid. This was big news 150 years ago, when the Manifesto was first written, but today everyone does it. It's called separation of Church and State.

Wrong. Society is made up of individuals, and social actions are the product of individual actions. Society is not separate from the individual any more than a building is separate from the bricks that make it up.

The purpose of communism is to bring the maximum benefit to the maximum possible number of individuals.

Revolution is against "divine rights"? Funny, I didn't know we had the divine right to be oppressed. Or the divine right to be exploited, or the divine right to be enslaved...

As for "centralized socialization", you'll have to be a little more specific. Are you talking about stalinist oppression and perversion of communism, or a real socialist/communist system? In the latter case, I need to remind you that this is democratic socialization. The same as the one practiced by the early Christians.

No, that's what happens in capitalism, when a sizable portion of the product of your labour becomes your boss's property.

Communism institutes social property over the things that are socially produced - which are the vast majority of the goods produced in a modern society (how many things these days are made by one man working alone?). Instead of all the products of your labour becoming the property of one man (your boss), they are shared by all, and you decide democratically what to do with them.

Actually, that's a plain lie. Where did you get that idea from?

The revolution doesn't have to be violent. But if it comes to that, people who take up arms (on both sides) have a certain chance to lose their lives, of course...

Divine rights as I counted them are as well for politics as for any other part of life. Of course, it isn't anything new, even when Hebrews chosen for kingdom instead of theocracy in biblical times it was their freedom of choice, their responsibility. These things have God's endorsement, as some stolze kings thought. It isn't only right, it is our duty here. What does it have with separation of church and state I'm not sure, altough it's sure that artificial responsibility institute (state) should be minimal, so I agree.

Brick wall is composed of bricks, but the wall itself you can sell much better than that couple of bricks and malta. Communism is a system, which takes people as bricks inside a wall. Give them maximum care, paint them with one color and it should be good. Perfect system, really...

Let is socialization process democratic or not, it is centrally controlled. If nothing else, there is a manifest and other totalitarily functioning laws, which control it from the center of state. Still it would be for you Bucharestian law forced to Timisoara.

Labor isn't property, it's an act. Actor can't "own" his performance or you can't "own" your walk. That's a nonsense. What one company produces is a property of unpersonal institute, which gives wages depending on success of product. Communism is in this illogical, as it gives same wages, no matter how is product selling.

Things you call "lie" I don't have to comment more. Lack of arguments?  ::)  I think I gave you sufficent description higher.

[filecore]

If you actually READ the old testament

Yes, and God's original name was El Shaweh (and reminds me of an excellent Arthur C Clark story, The Six Billion Names of God iirc ) or something like that, and he was a fiction of the desert nomads and only became mainstream later.  Oh and just because I'm not religious in your sense, don't please presume that I haven't read the Bible.  I remember how your loving and caring Christian god razed the cities of Jericho and Ai, and slaughtered all the women and children and animals after the armies were ambushed, no less, and defeated.  This is one of the reasons I love talking to door-to-door evangelists  ;)

God is mentioned many times as Elohim. This is translated to "Gods" plural. You could argue differently, but this boils down to studying scripture, so unless you want to debate somewhere else, it would be hard to argue.

Yes indeed it all comes down to a matter of semantics, and of course mistranslations.  Did you know, for example, that witch is the usual term for both male and female adepts of the craft. Wizard is an acceptable term but not exact; it means sorceror or magician - but not all magicians are witches and nor do all witches practice magic.

Warlock is considered to be offensive as well as incorrect because it is associated with Devil worship, and real wiccan art is not devil worship - and the word itself by its derivation means oath breaker, and witches do not break oaths. Quite on the contrary; the craft forbids the breaking of oaths.

To add to the derivations, witch derives from wicca meaning wise, and from wicce meaning woman, which may account for most witches being traditionally female (and may also suggest that our ancestors knew something which we don't). And in calling witchcraft simply 'the craft', is a short way of saying 'the craft of wisdom'.

To bring us back to the theme of contemporary (?) Christianity. The Bible states quite clearly that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" - Exodus 22:18. This has been the root cause of a lot of denouncing witches as worshippers of the Devil and of burnings in Britain and Europe.

However, the word witch translates from the Old Hebrew - in which the Bible was first written - as poisoner. Not letting a poisoner continue to breathe strikes me as a damn good idea. But how many friendless but innocent old women have been burned alive as the result of a sloppy translation? After all, the word witch is English and not Hebrew. Surely the Good Lord would not allow hundreds of innocent women to be tortured to death over a mistranslation that He could so easily have corrected...?  Ahh the folly of humankind eh?  But then again, aren't we made in his image?  Oh this goes round in circles forever.

As a closing note, when you say of God, "he sacrificed his son for us", what do you hint at? The way I see it, 'justice' is not a divine concept; it is a human illusion. The very basis of the popular Judeo-Christian code is injustice, the scapegoat system. If you read carefully, the scapegoat sacrifice runs all through the Old Testament, then reaches its height in the New Testament with the notion of the 'martyred redeemed', Christ himself. But how can justice possibly be served by dumping your sins onto another, by creating a simple scapegoat?

Hmm, I realise this is getting off the concept of "Democracy and..." but I think I've said enough.  More fuel for the fire!

[Caid Ivik]

Full God's name is Jah Cebaot Elohi Israel Elohim Hhaim ve Melch Ulam El Shaddai, to be sure. This is what officially contains the Shem ham'forash. Maybe I can translate it as "ethernal and omnipotent King, Lord and God of Israel, which is", altough it's just a free translation. It was shortened to JHVH, "Jah ve hajah", "He, who is", I can say "The Being". Especially with addon Elohim it means something like "existing over-God". With this, Hebrews tried to explain, that they think Jah is not only a highest, but also the only one truly existing God. Total God, which controls everything, not only a specifical part of universe (ie like Baal controlled weather or Hades death in neighboring cults). "Superexisting" God was over the universe.

However, tetragrammaton JHVH has sufficient meaning. "Jod" means Aciluh, archetype, model-world, place of Tora's origin. First "He" means Briah, creation, beginning. "Vau" is Jecirach, formalization, giving of shape to creation. Last "He" is Ashiach, the temporaly existing world (as metaword), the activity, reason. As ancient Hebrews saw in God primarily a creative and reason-giving force, it was enough for them.

[filecore]

Okay... you win.  I didn't know that.  Interesting stuff, though :-) it's always good to learn more.

A little OT but still with the religious theme:

http://crazy.codetroop.com/randimg/?kyrkskylt.jpg

[TMA_1]

Filecore, semantics is mcuh different than your interpritation. Besides all that info you said wasent needed. Though some of it was new to me and is pretty interesting.

Also God had to destroy the people because of their great evil. Human sacrifice, huge orgies in whcih even babies were raped, I mean it is sickening. Just like waht God had to do when he sent the flood.

Of course these are just my opinions. you actually have some good ideas too filecore. I just dont agree with a lot of them.lol your a smart guy though, so I respect em.

[Acriku]

It brings my heart to joy when I see people advocate mass genocide.

[filecore]

It brings my heart to joy when I see people advocate mass genocide.

Also God had to destroy the people because of their great evil. [snip] Just like waht God had to do when he sent the flood.

Ahh but remember, it is all justified.  After all, they were EVIL  :O and as we know, evil people can NEVER be redeemed, NEVER learn the error of their ways, and NEVER be forgiven in the eyes of God, and therefore should be crushed and stamped and squished flat.  Right, TMA-1?*

*I'm not having a go at you personally, thanks for your remark about:

Of course these are just my opinions. you actually have some good ideas too filecore. I just dont agree with a lot of them.lol your a smart guy though, so I respect em.

I'm totally with that.  It's nothing to do with you, it's just your opinions - which I happen to think are silly  :P

[Caid Ivik]

Evil human is a human as well. No one is doomed or predestined to damnation before death. We're all made as Kether, crown to creation, sign of God in this world. And also: God's mercy is borderless...

[filecore]

Caid,

That was my point.  I was replying to TMA-1's

God had to destroy the people because of their great evil

comment.  My point being, we are all in the image of G0d etc etc etc and Lucifer was an angel, no less, and still managed to fall from glory etc but why should we then suffer for just being what we are?  Should the inhabitants of Jericho and Ai and Egypt and all those other places have been made to die horribly because they had done something bad, or even were just family members of people who did something bad?  Surely, for example, not EVERY man, woman and child was EVIL, and yet they all were exterminated anyway.  That's not right, in my book?

[Caid Ivik]

Israeli nation was a tool of God, people, who made a dirty work for him. Same judgement was placed upon Sodoma, altough here threw His might directly. When He drowned egyptian army, it is possible there had died many righteous, honorable men, who just followed orders. His intentions are unexplainable. Maybe He just wanted to make His enemies fear. Collateral damage is a dreadful, but effective tool...

[filecore]

His intentions are unexplainable. Maybe He just wanted to make His enemies fear. Collateral damage is a dreadful, but effective tool...

It's a strange thought.  I mean, this is a thread about democracy and christianity... so if you live in a state in which your ruler (in this case, God) makes you live under a feeling of fear, and that innocent people might be destroyed just to get a few corrupt ones, that's not a democracy - that's a God-dictatorship based on fear.

[Caid Ivik]

Israeli wanted not to spread their believe. They were just a small nation, one of the many. According to Bible we believe that God was their ally in their conquest. They had not feared him (if we don't use that honoring sense of the word), but He did everything what He could let the others do so. Now He is the head of christianity, which wants to take even pagan to believers. And to persuase someone fully, to his deep soul, you cannot push him into it violently or by fear.

[filecore]

And to persuase someone fully, to his deep soul, you cannot push him into it violently or by fear.

In which case, if we now accept that all the people who had been slaughtered by and for God in the Old Testament (which are the ones that TMA-1 called "evil") were not all evil and, since they included women and children, were not even all guilty of the crimes for which they were punished (and surely an omnipotent God would know this?), then why could not some of them have been spared?  They could have lived among the Christians or moved away, or been peacefully persuaded to convert.  But they weren't, were they...?