I Support Jesus

Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
I Support Jesus

Let's be crystal clear about this: I support Jesus.

I don't support worship of Jesus, nor do I support ritual cannibalism of Jesus.

But I support his message.

He was a smart motherfucker. Smart, but also brave. He carried a message and that message was his life.

He did not worry about his social position, nor what the neighbours might think.

He did not pay any particular attention to whatever was the will of the politicians of the time.

He told his disciples to be honest and to not compromise their honesty with lies of convenience.

Jesus was a revolutionary. Possibly even a Marxist. Certainly an anarchist.

But was he the son of God? No.

Or yes. In any case, no more so that you or me. He was an example.

If, as a Christian, you live by that examole, I respect you. You get it.

However, if, as a Christian, you worship the Bible, I spit on you. You are a dog. Worthless.

All that matters is what you do. What you do. This minute, this hour; and every moment of every day.

What you do determines what you are - which is what you shall be judged by.

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Infidelis
Superfan
Infidelis's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2009-12-01
User is offlineOffline
Well,

 I support Reilly the Leprechaun.

 

But wait a darn second!

 

Reilly the Leprechaun doesn't nor ever did exist, so who the fuck cares?


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Infidelis wrote: doesn't

Infidelis wrote:

 doesn't nor ever did exist

 

What does and what doesn't exist is beside the point.

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Let's be

Marquis wrote:

Let's be crystal clear about this: I support Jesus.

I don't support worship of Jesus, nor do I support ritual cannibalism of Jesus.

But I support his message.

He was a smart motherfucker. Smart, but also brave. He carried a message and that message was his life.

He did not worry about his social position, nor what the neighbours might think.

He did not pay any particular attention to whatever was the will of the politicians of the time.

He told his disciples to be honest and to not compromise their honesty with lies of convenience.

Jesus was a revolutionary. Possibly even a Marxist. Certainly an anarchist.

But was he the son of God? No.

Or yes. In any case, no more so that you or me. He was an example.

If, as a Christian, you live by that examole, I respect you. You get it.

However, if, as a Christian, you worship the Bible, I spit on you. You are a dog. Worthless.

All that matters is what you do. What you do. This minute, this hour; and every moment of every day.

What you do determines what you are - which is what you shall be judged by.

 

I agree and have always said the basic teachings of Jesus were good, and to live by them is not a bad thing.  What bothers me is that common folk need this example to "tell" them what they should do, where as a self-moral person most likely understood these "guidelines" in the first place.  Jesus (if he ever existed) seemed to be a pretty good guy, and progessively moral for his time.  But I'm sure they're were many of this type, and still are many around today.  One shouldn't look at the story of "Jesus" and say that's exactly how i should act, one should look at the story of Jesus and say, well I am already of good moral character, and this guy seems to be aswell.  And that's about as far as it should go, no worship necessary.   

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It's one thing to admire

It's one thing to admire someone for sticking to their ideals, but when most of those ideals are totally misguided or worse, I say he can go f**k himself.

He endorsed the crap 'Laws' of the Old Testament.

Disowned his family for no good reason.

Was prone to fits of temper: the money lenders in the temple, the Gadarene swine bit, the fig tree.  

Not saying he didn't do some reasonable things, but don't think he deserves endorsement.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Infidelis
Superfan
Infidelis's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2009-12-01
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Infidelis

Marquis wrote:

Infidelis wrote:

 doesn't nor ever did exist

 

What does and what doesn't exist is beside the point.

 

I don't think so. You are telling me you support the actions of a nonexistent being. Why not just say you support the things you listed, and would support someone who displayed/acted out those things. Slapping jesus on there doesn't really do anything, what you mean is you support a character with those traits. you don't actually support Jesus, because if you did you would support him as a being in himself, which clearly you don't.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Possibly even

Marquis wrote:

Possibly even a Marxist.

explain.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Marquis

iwbiek wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Possibly even a Marxist.

explain.

Dialectic materialism... ( "the meek shall inherit the earth"... )... etc. etc.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Infidelis wrote:I don't

Infidelis wrote:

I don't think so.

 

I don't give a fuck what you think.

I said "I support Jesus" and I quoted my reasons.

Feel free to disagree.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:think he

BobSpence1 wrote:
think he deserves endorsement.

 

Your position in this issue has been duely noted.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:iwbiek

Marquis wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Possibly even a Marxist.

explain.

Dialectic materialism... ( "the meek shall inherit the earth"... )... etc. etc.

Which embodies the same fallacy as Marxism - "the virtue of the oppressed". Whoever takes over power is just as likely to be as bad or worse than those they overthrew, as in Soviet Russia and Communist China.

And BTW, I think Capitalism has its own massive flaws too.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:"the virtue

BobSpence1 wrote:

"the virtue of the oppressed"

 

 

Surely you won't deny that the ones who feel more oppressed also feel more righteous and justified?!?

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Infidelis
Superfan
Infidelis's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2009-12-01
User is offlineOffline
L O L. Have fun being a

L O L. Have fun being a lonely fucking person.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:BobSpence1

Marquis wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

"the virtue of the oppressed"

Surely you won't deny that the ones who feel more oppressed also feel more righteous and justified?!?

 

Of course not - the error is to assume that that feeling of being "more righteous and justified" makes them actually any different ultimately than their oppressors, if they find themselves in the same position with respect to others.

The early history of Christianity is a classic example here - once freed from Roman 'persecution', they proceeded to persecute followers of other religions much more harshly than they had been.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:iwbiek

Marquis wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Possibly even a Marxist.

explain.

Dialectic materialism... ( "the meek shall inherit the earth"... )... etc. etc.

marx was not a dialectical materialist.  that term never appears in his or engels' writings.  it was a leninist development, later canonized by stalin through the comintern.  marx was a historical materialist.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Which

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which embodies the same fallacy as Marxism - "the virtue of the oppressed".

eeeaaaasy, bob...  where did you get that phrase?  from marx?  because i've never encountered it.

marx did not believe in objective "virtue" or morality.  he did not think capitalism or capitalists were "evil."  in fact, he clearly said that capitalism was a necessary step in the historical progression of mankind.  he was a great admirer of both adam smith and david ricardo.  he was against capitalism because he believed it had outlived its natural lifespan and had become a bloated corpse, not because of some ridiculous concept like "virtue," especially virtue inherent in a particular class.

if you think marxism fallacious, fair enough, but address marxism as it actually is. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Let's be

Marquis wrote:

Let's be crystal clear about this: I support Jesus.

I don't support worship of Jesus, nor do I support ritual cannibalism of Jesus.

But I support his message.

He was a smart motherfucker. Smart, but also brave. He carried a message and that message was his life.

He did not worry about his social position, nor what the neighbours might think.

He did not pay any particular attention to whatever was the will of the politicians of the time.

He told his disciples to be honest and to not compromise their honesty with lies of convenience.

Jesus was a revolutionary. Possibly even a Marxist. Certainly an anarchist.

But was he the son of God? No.

Or yes. In any case, no more so that you or me. He was an example.

If, as a Christian, you live by that examole, I respect you. You get it.

However, if, as a Christian, you worship the Bible, I spit on you. You are a dog. Worthless.

All that matters is what you do. What you do. This minute, this hour; and every moment of every day.

What you do determines what you are - which is what you shall be judged by.

 

All magic aside, the NT also Jesus demanding that you abandon anyone who doesn't follow him. You are cherry picking.

I can like the moral stories of Star Wars and Harry Potter but that doesn't mean magic is real, nor does it mean I agree with every aspect of those fictional claims even if only taken in a metaphorical sense.

"Loyalty" is a motif in the bible, in Star Wars and in "Harry Potter". But in reality, do we always want to aspire to that "Loyalty"? Hitler demanded loyalty, and because of his successful marketing of a utopia, for a while he was successful, but at the cost of 6 million Jews, because the "loyalty" sold to the Germans.

Thomas Jefferson like the moral stories of Jesus too. He didn't believe in the magical birth or death of Jesus, but he cherry picked, like you are here, the warm fuzzy "cant we all just get along" motifs, and just like you, ignoring the blind loyalty without question motifs in that same book.

There is no question in the bible. The god of Jesus is the one true god and if you don't kiss his ass you will suffer, not just in this life, but for eternity. If it is just metaphor, it is a horrible metaphor.

Whatever stories about men put in any holy book selling pretty stories do nothing to support reality. "Love thy neighbor" is not magical nor literal.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:BobSpence1

iwbiek wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which embodies the same fallacy as Marxism - "the virtue of the oppressed".

eeeaaaasy, bob...  where did you get that phrase?  from marx?  because i've never encountered it.

marx did not believe in objective "virtue" or morality.  he did not think capitalism or capitalists were "evil."  in fact, he clearly said that capitalism was a necessary step in the historical progression of mankind.  he was a great admirer of both adam smith and david ricardo.  he was against capitalism because he believed it had outlived its natural lifespan and had become a bloated corpse, not because of some ridiculous concept like "virtue," especially virtue inherent in a particular class.

if you think marxism fallacious, fair enough, but address marxism as it actually is. 

I think I probably first came across it discussed by Bertrand Russell, who I read a lot when younger.

There is an essay of his discussing this here.

From that essay:

Bertrand Russell wrote:

There’s no rational reason to believe that one segment of mankind is morally superior to another. But many moralists like to think better of groups to which they do not belong, and especially oppressed groups such as “subject nations, the poor, women and children [p. 69]” – or noble savages.

Since the French Revolution, the issue of “the superior virtue of the poor [p. 70]” has been politicized; one form has been socialism’s enthronement of the urban proletariat. Patriots of oppressed peoples and the peoples themselves are thought well of, but once they achieve their independence they are found to be like everyone else. We still hear about the ‘wisdom of the east,’ though. 

Marx may not have used that expression, but I sense some hint of the feeling in Marxism/Communism in general, certainly in later proponents.

The general point I think is still valid, that too much power is the problem, not so much who wields it, or how they get to that position. It is probably more a point about revolutions in general, whether 'justified' by Marxist theory or anything else. I think Marx's main failing was an over-idealist vision of 'human nature', that the model of society he envisaged would really be workable.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The jesus character does spout some

 

Pleasant human truths in the NT about loving your brother and whatnot but he loses me for good in Mark - the source book for all the rest of the bullshit - when he launches into this pinnacle of self help....


Jesus Christ says in Mark 9:43-47,

43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.





 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Was prone

BobSpence1 wrote:

Was prone to fits of temper: the money lenders in the temple, the Gadarene swine bit, the fig tree.  

Getting mad at the fig tree was a bit pathological, I'd agree. And the pig suicides probably seemed like a good idea at the time but doesn't have the same appeal now, fair enough.

However, the table throwing incident, on the other hand  --  p.u.r.e. g.o.l.d.

How can you not like a messenger from god telling the popular religious hypocrites of the day what a crock of shit they're selling to their followers. If an atheist can like anything about Jesus it absolutely has to be that, surely?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Dialectic

Marquis wrote:

Dialectic materialism... ( "the meek shall inherit the earth"... )... etc. etc.

Jesus was not a materialist.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Is it possible to say anything

Paisley wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Dialectic materialism... ( "the meek shall inherit the earth"... )... etc. etc.

Jesus was not a materialist.

 

 

About jesus in terms of painting him with an entirely human perspective? This was a magic dude who could conjure up a ferrari dino and roar through the streets of Sidon. People who live in overturned water tanks down foxes road at minyon falls are not materialists. Jesus can't be judged by this yardstick in a million years. I dislike talking about Jesus as though he really was. Jesus is a doubtful character and the best word to describe him is immaterial. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Let's be

Marquis wrote:

Let's be crystal clear about this: I support Jesus.

I don't support worship of Jesus, nor do I support ritual cannibalism of Jesus.

But I support his message.

He was a smart motherfucker. Smart, but also brave. He carried a message and that message was his life.

He did not worry about his social position, nor what the neighbours might think.

He did not pay any particular attention to whatever was the will of the politicians of the time.

He told his disciples to be honest and to not compromise their honesty with lies of convenience.

Jesus was a revolutionary. Possibly even a Marxist. Certainly an anarchist.

But was he the son of God? No.

Or yes. In any case, no more so that you or me. He was an example.

If, as a Christian, you live by that examole, I respect you. You get it.

However, if, as a Christian, you worship the Bible, I spit on you. You are a dog. Worthless.

All that matters is what you do. What you do. This minute, this hour; and every moment of every day.

What you do determines what you are - which is what you shall be judged by.

 

He was a masochist of..... BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Infidelis wrote:L O L. Have

Infidelis wrote:

L O L. Have fun being a lonely fucking person.

 

I wanted to fuck while lonely one time but I ended up going out with Rosie Palms and her Five Sisters.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Jesus, if he existed, was a

Jesus, if he existed, was a delusional leader of an apocalyptic cult. His moral teachings, at least the ones cherry-picked by Christians today, are all obviously apparent to anyone with a working brain. The teachings that Christ was most famous for were the insane ones: God is the Father Almighty, and maker of heaven and Earth, Jesus Christ is his son, who shall come to judge the quick and the dead, the Holy Universal Church, the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting, Amen. All of his other ethical teachings were echoed independently by great thinkers and common men centuries before his time, and centuries since.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:iwbiek

Marquis wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Possibly even a Marxist.

explain.

Dialectic materialism... ( "the meek shall inherit the earth"... )... etc. etc.

BTW, do you support dialectical materialism?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Marx may

BobSpence1 wrote:

Marx may not have used that expression, but I sense some hint of the feeling in Marxism/Communism in general, certainly in later proponents.

to my knowledge, neither marx nor engels ever sank to discussing inherent virtue, but they certainly weren't averse to using pathos if it suited their ends.  they were very realistic about what would appeal to the proletariat.  the communist manifesto is full of pathos, which is why i get irritated when people use that as their only source for marxist theory.  engels wrote an entire exposee of working-class manchester to get people riled up.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I think Marx's main failing was an over-idealist vision of 'human nature', that the model of society he envisaged would really be workable.

i would say marx's main failing was not taking human nature into account at all.  his historical materialism was very deterministic and, based on his intense study of the inner workings of capitalism, he considered communism an inevitability, whether people liked it or not.  he was all for agitation to speed up the process, but he didn't believe that it ultimately depended on human initiative.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Marquis

natural wrote:

Marquis wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Possibly even a Marxist.

explain.

Dialectic materialism... ( "the meek shall inherit the earth"... )... etc. etc.

BTW, do you support dialectical materialism?

i would like to know that myself.

actually, i see a lot of value in dialectical materialism, though i don't subscribe to it unreservedly.  i find it more satisfying than marx and engels' idea of historical materialism, especially because dialectical materialism doesn't necessarily move toward any final synthesis.  i find mao's essay "on contradictions" to be one of the most intriguing pieces on the theory of history ever written.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Marquis

Paisley wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Dialectic materialism... ( "the meek shall inherit the earth"... )... etc. etc.

Jesus was not a materialist.

 

i actually have to agree with paisley on this.  nor do i think he was a dialectical materialist, and certainly not a marxist, unless you consider marxism to mean "overturning the social order" or "redistribution of wealth," which is what a lot of people who haven't encountered marx beyond high school social studies think it means.

of course, i take "marxism" to mean marxist theory based on the best possible synthesis of marx and engels' most developed theoretical writings.  in this case, the basic required conditions for marxist revolutionary thought are:

1. the existence of a proletariat that is a collective slave to wage labor (i.e., labor is this class's only commodity),

2. a capitalist class which collectively holds the means of production in a society and uses that means solely for the production of surplus value,

3. a compulsion for every capitalist to relentlessly pursue said increase without end which, if unchecked, leads inevitably to monopolization.

the end result of a socialist revolution, according to marx, is the expropriation of the means of production by the proletariat.  of course, none of these conditions existed in jesus's time.  therefore, to call jesus a marxist is to completely convolute the meaning of the word. 

btw, for jesus to be simultaneously a marxist and an anarchist would be impossible by definition.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Marquis

Paisley wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Dialectic materialism... ( "the meek shall inherit the earth"... )... etc. etc.

Jesus was not a materialist.

 

WHO CARES?

It takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote which slightly makes the claim of his virgin birth BULLSHIT! Not to mention the "purity" motifs of other pagan gods prior, and not to mention the date of December 25 was adapted by Christianity to compete with the polytheism that surrounded the early Christians of the time.

That's like saying "George Washington was not a communist" misses the point that NO ONE in their right mind would claim that he could fart a Lamborghini out of his ass.

Whatever warm fuzzy stories you get out of the bible as being good morals misses all the other horrible stories of murder, incest, genocide and not to mention scientific absurdities explained away with magical "POOF" "God did it" pathetic logic.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:natural

iwbiek wrote:

natural wrote:

Marquis wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Possibly even a Marxist.

explain.

Dialectic materialism... ( "the meek shall inherit the earth"... )... etc. etc.

BTW, do you support dialectical materialism?

i would like to know that myself.

 

The way I understand dialectic materialism, it is absurd to "support" it; or even to "disagree" with it; as it is a name given to certain forces of history that Karl Marx claimed to perceive and tried to organize into a system. On the ironic side, I will note that Marx is probably as abused as Jesus when it comes to the act of taking his philosophies at less-than-face-value as claims of academic authority for several less-than-sane historical projects.

For the record: I am an unrepentant, selfish bastard who does not "believe" in anything, but who still considers all thinking and all ideas as being of possible value to me in the ever ongoing battle of trying to understand what the fuck is going on and what life is about. I wil leave no stone unturned like that. What I won't do, however, is to go all knee-jerk before some favourite (but arbitrary) system of idiosyncratic fixations.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Jesus was not

Paisley wrote:

Jesus was not a materialist.

 

What was he then? Invisible and aethereal?

And what were his advices on how to live? Just metaphors?

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:The way I

Marquis wrote:

The way I understand dialectic materialism, it is absurd to "support" it; or even to "disagree" with it; as it is a name given to certain forces of history that Karl Marx claimed to perceive and tried to organize into a system.

then you don't understand it.

once again, dialectical materialism had nothing to do with marx.  he never used the term.  it was a later leninist accretion.  second of all, it's very possible to disagree with it.  many theorists do.  you can just say that history is not moved by the interplay of oppositional socioeconomic forces.  rather, history is moved by "great men," "memetics," "god," or even "yin and yang."  there are a million possibilities and arguments for almost every one of them. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Paisley

Marquis wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Jesus was not a materialist.

 

What was he then? Invisible and aethereal?

And what were his advices on how to live? Just metaphors?

a materialist believes there is nothing spiritual or eternal, nor any such thing as objective ideals or morals, and that human action and thought can be explained completely by biological need.  from all the sources we possess, it is clear that jesus did not take this position.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I see

 

That means my disagreement with pais was half-cocked. Excuse me.

By this definition people are either materialists or fantasists.

I'm going to nominate the first while retaining the second for entertainment purposes...

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Paisley

Brian37 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Dialectic materialism... ( "the meek shall inherit the earth"... )... etc. etc.

Jesus was not a materialist.

WHO CARES?

I would hope that Marquis would care because he is professing to support Jesus and his message. 

Marquis wrote:

Let's be crystal clear about this: I support Jesus.

I don't support worship of Jesus, nor do I support ritual cannibalism of Jesus.

But I support his message.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Marquis

Paisley wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Dialectic materialism... ( "the meek shall inherit the earth"... )... etc. etc.

Jesus was not a materialist.

 

For someone who wasn't a materialist, he spent an awful lot of time speaking on the material world (or at least that's what the writers put in his mouth).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Tada! Wikipedia! Quote:In

Tada! Wikipedia!

Quote:
In philosophy the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance.

Ergo, by definition, Jesus was not a materialist. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Paisley

Marquis wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Jesus was not a materialist.

 

What was he then? Invisible and aethereal?

And what were his advices on how to live? Just metaphors?

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Jesus

(source: Matthew 4:4 KJV)

Marx's dialectical materialism is a perversion of Hegel's dialectical idealism.

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

Liberation theology is more compatible with Jesus' gospel and Hegel's dialectical idealism, that with Marx's dialectical materialism.

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

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Marquis

Paisley wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Jesus was not a materialist.

 

What was he then? Invisible and aethereal?

And what were his advices on how to live? Just metaphors?

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Jesus

(source: Matthew 4:4 KJV)

Marx's dialectical materialism is a perversion of Hegel's dialectical idealism.

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

Liberation theology is more compatible with Jesus' gospel and Hegel's dialectical idealism, that with Marx's dialectical materialism.

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

 

Then again, there is the parable of the talents, which is all about material substance as though it's all there is...

It sure is a good thing most of us aren't materialists, huh?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:a materialist

iwbiek wrote:

a materialist believes there is nothing spiritual or eternal

Well, I would say that a materialist is more likely to believe that the material is eternal. Of course, this is a belief taken on faith.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:For someone

jcgadfly wrote:

For someone who wasn't a materialist, he spent an awful lot of time speaking on the material world (or at least that's what the writers put in his mouth).

Educate yourself by reading post # 37 by butterbattle.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

For someone who wasn't a materialist, he spent an awful lot of time speaking on the material world (or at least that's what the writers put in his mouth).

Educate yourself by reading post # 37 by butterbattle.

I just want to make sure you understand that Jesus had concern for material things. His concerns did not rest solely in the ideal/spiritual as you claim. A pure idealist would have no concern with material things because they would not be in his reality - he'd have to make up some bs to justify their obvious existence

He was neither materialist nor idealist if he existed.

Still a damn good thing there aren't any materialists here, huh? Oh wait, you claim we're materialists because we're atheists.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah you're right, Pais,

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

a materialist believes there is nothing spiritual or eternal

Well, I would say that a materialist is more likely to believe that the material is eternal. Of course, this is a belief taken on faith.

 

And the existence of any kind of expectation on the basis of evidence underscores the fact of god. I knew I was missing something.

Could you just confirm for me that you accept only one definition for the word "faith"?

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Educate yourself by reading post # 37 by butterbattle.

I just want to make sure you understand that Jesus had concern for material things.

Why the pretense? You neither understand the teachings of Jesus nor the meaning of the term "materialism."  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Well, I would say that a materialist is more likely to believe that the material is eternal. Of course, this is a belief taken on faith.

 

And the existence of any kind of expectation on the basis of evidence underscores the fact of god. I knew I was missing something.

Could you just confirm for me that you accept only one definition for the word "faith"? 

You are missing something. It's called an argument.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:He was a smart

Marquis wrote:

He was a smart motherfucker.

So you believe in the doctrine of the trinity.

 

Marquis wrote:

All that matters is what you do. What you do. This minute, this hour; and every moment of every day.

What you do determines what you are - which is what you shall be judged by.

Pretty contrary to the teaching of the NT. People are saved by faith, not works. You would be judged by what you believe and the condition your heart. Isn't that Jesus' message, that God judges the heart and not what people do externally to impress other people?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:iwbiek wrote:a

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

a materialist believes there is nothing spiritual or eternal

Well, I would say that a materialist is more likely to believe that the material is eternal. Of course, this is a belief taken on faith.

i wouldn't necessarily say that, at least not without heavy qualification.  i myself am a materialist, though not necessarily a dialectical or historical one, and i would say that depends on what you mean by "eternal."  if you mean it in the sense of conservation of energy, yes, i'll go along with that.  but that is relative to our universe and our dimension.  i have never ruled out the possibility of the "existence" of other dimensions where the natural laws we know do not apply.  i have pretty much ruled out the possibility of humans ever perceiving them, however.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Marquis wrote:He

EXC wrote:

Marquis wrote:

He was a smart motherfucker.

So you believe in the doctrine of the trinity.

I got that joke.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:a materialist

iwbiek wrote:

a materialist believes there is nothing ... eternal, nor any such thing as objective ideals or morals....

As a materialist, let me express my opposition to those three statements. But yes, us materialists only believe in the material word. Or as I like to call it: "the real world."

 

Jesus was not materialist. That should be obvious.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:iwbiek

Jormungander wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

a materialist believes there is nothing ... eternal, nor any such thing as objective ideals or morals....

As a materialist, let me express my opposition to those three statements.

if you're going to express it then explain it.  what is eternal?  what ideals or morals are objective?  i'm not saying morality isn't useful as an ingrained evolutionary mechanism, and thus in that sense it is "right," but i hardly think that counts as being objective.  if you believe in morals or ideals that are eternal or universal over and above being a utility for the survival and development of humanity, then you're getting into formalism and i would wonder why you feel justified in calling yourself a materialist.  if you do not believe in this, then why do you object to my statements?

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen