• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is early Christianity communism?

Lucidthots said:
Adam= myth

Noah = Myth

Abraham = Myth

Moses= Myth

Jaccob = Myth

Joshua = Myth

Solomon = Myth

Elijah = Myth

Jesus = Myth


I don't know where you get your information from but given the fact that you have been gravely mistaken on several key points so far I sudgest you find a new source. In terms of your list:

Adam - There must have been a first man. What difference does it make what his name was?

Noah - Most cultures have stories of a great flood that covered all the Earth and a single family surviving on a wooden boat. What difference does it make what his name was?

Abraham - Unknown.

Moses - There are several non-biblical texts referring to Moses as the leader of the great exodus.

Jaccob - Unknown.

Joshua - Unknown.

Solomon - There is historical and physical evidence sudgesting that Jedidiah aka Solomon did indeed exist.

Elijah - Unknown.

Jesus - There is some historical evidence that Jesus existed. More specifically, in Roman historical reccords.
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Yes they did. Apparently you've never heard of the Dark Ages.

You must mean the Dark Ages when Christianity was the sole preserver of learning, education and the historical record. The Dark Ages followed the collapse of the Roman Empire and European decline into tribalism, not induced by Christianity or perpetuated by Christianity. Out of that grew corruption of the church, but historians that are honest recognize that the church stepped into an authority role at least in large part to prevent further chaos.

Like all things, a philosophy's value is determined by how it is applied. There are more passages in the bible encouraging violence, murder, and genocide than in any other religious text.

That would of course be for two reasons: 1) it's the largest if taken as a whole; 2) it demonstrates the progression of human understanding of the divine-human relationship which critics generally do ignore. The problem, my friend, is that you are comparing apples and oranges. In the former case to combine all sacred teachings of Hinduism, limiting it to the Gitas, you would find more violence advocated for. The Qu'ran is also, for its relative size, more violent than the Judeo-Christian canon.

In the Qu'ran you also do not have the divine-human relationship developed over centuries, you have one person's impression of God given in half of a lifetime. The unique nature of the Bible is that it provides a composite understanding of divine-human relationship over roughly 2000 years. No other religion has that rich of a composite canon. And through that we see human understanding molded and shaped until, by the time of the prophets and in the New Testament there is no understanding that violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing are okay.

Every religion has it's dark teachings. Again, it's a matter of how those teachings are put into practice.

If you cut and paste the teachings rather than reading the depth that is true.

Christianity has more blood on it's metaphorical hands than any other religion in history to date.

This is completely untrue. National Socialism, Aryan Supremacy and other campaigns of Ethnic superiority, Shintoism, Secularism and Nihilism, Jihadism, the "Civilizing/Pacifying" doctrines behind colonialism, Manifest Destiny, all are religions responsible for more mayhem and murder than Christianity. You are confusing political manipulation of the masses with religion. All religions encounter people who manipulate their adherents with false teaching with cut-and-paste religiosity, but the religion is not to blame.

For instance, humanity drapes every war in religious terms, it's called sacralization, or declaring something holy after the decision has been made to make it palatable. Saddam Hussein cloaked his gassing of the Kurds in religious terms, the Popes dressed the military conquest called the Crusades in religious terms (but read Jonathan Riley-Smith and other historians of the Crusades and they will explain that religiosity was exploited to get lesser sons of nobles out of Europe so they would quit the petty turf wars), the Japanese military embraced Shintoism as justification for tearing Nanking to pieces. To blame religion is to take too simplistic a way out and so miss the real culprits of history: the rise of the nation state, the creation of empires, systemic racism, colonialism and Cold War.

See the simplistic way to view the War on Terror is to label it a war on Islamo-facism, or whatever just to tie the war to Jungian style typology that releases two images in our collective memory. In this case a stereotype of Arab and stereotype of a Nazi. Both have religious implications and perhaps negative racial-religious connotations, though not necessarily so, unless the state defines them somehow as a threat. We may have a gut reaction prior to the state's involvement but it is the state's pronouncement that actualizes the response. And suddenly, to be Arab=Islamist=terrorist=facist=nazi=enemy. Never mind that Islam is a global religion with adherents, I think, in every tribe. But the real point is that religious identity is often manipulated by the state with the result that the impression is that the enemy isn't quite human. And if the state does not have a theological religion, it will create a secular religion: National Socialism and Communism are examples of this phenomenon.

This distracts us from the reality in much the way the French nationalism in the opening days of WW1 led to utter disaster, well presented and with more detail than I can remember in Guns of August by I think Barbara Tuchman. The French officers told French troops that if they were brave enough, if they had enough "elan" bullets would pass right through them without harming them. Well the first half of the proposition came true for tens of thousands on the first few days, but obviously the second half did not and I forget how many divisions just ceased to be because nearly every soldier died. You can blame violence on religion, but you're looking in the wrong direction. It's not religion that produces the violence, it's nationalism/tribalism but that's an easy mistake to make because nationalism is often expressed in religious terms to "fire up the masses" and demonize the enemy. Just look at what happened in Rwanda in '94. Hyper-tribalism created by Belgian colonialism and Cold War neglect.

My point in all this is: by blaming religion, we ignore the other, and more directly causitive, agents. In doing so we prevent the formation of lasting peace. We do not see this present War on Terror as a consequence of the failings of colonial and Cold War strategies. We do not understand then that the violence is an expiation of our own manifest sins of violence and neglect when a butcher was ruler there. Instead we look for a religion to blame. It's easier, but it will never get us to the real culprit and so instability and suffering for all peoples will continue. The God of all religions longs for the day when children of the divine will, "beat swords (guns, tanks and bombs) into plowshares (tractors, combines and water wells)" and "when the Lion (of Islam) will lay down with the Lamb (of Christianity)" alongside "children of Abraham" and all others the world over.

So can you see why I can say Christianity was never communist, though was influencial in the development of communist ideology. The two systems are not constitute for the same purpose.
 
Lucidthots said:
Bible equals, a book of plagiarisms, stolen from ancient Mesopotamian writings and changed to give Jewish names to the heros of Mesopotamian literature.

NOAH/UTNAPISHTIM
SOLOMON'S TEMPLES/ GUDEA'S TEMPLE'S

The Jews lied about their heritage.

You are way off my friend. First "plagarism" in an oral/aural culture doesn't exist, it's called transmission of the story. The story of Job for instance was passed around the Near East orally for we think 1000 years before Solomon, with great wisdom, had it archived in writing. Of course the fact that such writings exist from that time is a demonstration of the reality of a place for writing to be stored. You see, oral/aural cultures tend to not keep written accounts until they have a settled place to call home. So the Israelites had a permanent place to call home, a secure place to put root and record down in. And Solomon's Temple was part of that experience, as archeology, the preserved Egyptian and Amarna trade records and history show us.

Noah is Gilgamesh too. Your "Solomon's Temples" IS Solomon's Temple. The Jews did not lie. They understood the true message of those "Mesopotamian" (actually Near Eastern) texts and Gudea's Temples are in no way related to Solomon's Temple except maybe architectural inspiration. Check out Ancient and Near Eastern Texts by Pritchard. It does an excellent job of providing the ANETs for several cultures and you will find the thoughts the Jewish people hand down to us are comparable to, but distinct from, other narrative truths journeying through the Near East at the time. There is no one single Near Eastern "flood narrative," every tribe had a battle with a flood for survival, but Israel's flood narrative is distinct in the end result and in the personal nature of a monotheistic God. Only the Ahura Mazda of arguably the earliest monotheistic religion, followers claiming Zarathustra's birth anywhere between 6000 and 1000 BC, (and who's name is in effect a cultural name for YHWH, the Lord God, Allah) Zoroastrianism could have been the other "culprit" of the story, but it is remarkably silent.

Having given you an easily researched explanation that has integrity to the people who originally did the spiritual writing, let's get back to the real thread topic now shall we?
 
Chevalier said:
You must mean the Dark Ages when Christianity was the sole preserver of learning, education and the historical record. The Dark Ages followed the collapse of the Roman Empire and European decline into tribalism, not induced by Christianity or perpetuated by Christianity. Out of that grew corruption of the church, but historians that are honest recognize that the church stepped into an authority role at least in large part to prevent further chaos.

ROFL ROFL ROFL. I don't think you have a grasp on history. During the Dark Ages all non-religious literature and art was considered heretical as was science. The Inquisitions took place during the Dark Ages.



Chevalier said:
That would of course be for two reasons: 1) it's the largest if taken as a whole; 2) it demonstrates the progression of human understanding of the divine-human relationship which critics generally do ignore. The problem, my friend, is that you are comparing apples and oranges. In the former case to combine all sacred teachings of Hinduism, limiting it to the Gitas, you would find more violence advocated for. The Qu'ran is also, for its relative size, more violent than the Judeo-Christian canon.

Your entire argument hinges on whether one worships Jesus or God. God is jealous, angry, and venegeful and that is self described by him.

I
 
I would hardly describe National Socialism or secularism as religions, unless when yous ay religion you mean "anything with conscientious devotion." The religion of the national socialists was largely christian, while secularists don't believe in divinities or gods in government. That's not a religion.

Also, Manifest Destinity was one of the legacies of the Puritian era, directly stemming from the concept of the City Upon a Hill described by Bradford and Winthrop. It didn't emerge in the 19th century---it was there since the 17h century as part of the Literature of Domination.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
I would hardly describe National Socialism or secularism as religions, unless when yous ay religion you mean "anything with conscientious devotion." The religion of the national socialists was largely christian, while secularists don't believe in divinities or gods in government. That's not a religion.

Also, Manifest Destinity was one of the legacies of the Puritian era, directly stemming from the concept of the City Upon a Hill described by Bradford and Winthrop. It didn't emerge in the 19th century---it was there since the 17h century as part of the Literature of Domination.

While most Germans were Christian, the leadership and the Secret Cults behind German National Socialism was Germanic Occult Revivalism, which I rather like, however I would prefer it without the Totalitarian Politics.
 
Even Hitler was a Christian, as is evidenced by his personal writings and extensive talk of Jesus being great, the messiah, the savior...and the christian god being great and the one true god.
 
Chevalier said:
And why would that be any source of pride for you, my friend? I see you are caught up in the self-aggrandizing culture around us. Maybe you can take pleasure in this: you and I and all others are responsible for Jesus' death. He died for you and I and the world. Like it or not Jesus paid a ransom for you as well, but you prefer to spit in his face. I pray for you my friend.



Quit making Jesus a martyr -- for you maybe but NOT for 3/4 of the world's population. Jesus was responsible for his OWN death, not me, and not the Jews, and not the Romans.
And the ONLY thing that Jesus has done for me is to forcefeed me the image of a NUDE and BLOODY man who willingly accepts the torture in a Supreme act of sado-masochism.

The man is DEAD! The image and ideology live on because SO MANY people are afraid of seeking TRUE spirituality from God and invent for themselves any number of 'Gods' so that they can tyrannize and put shakles upon others. The idea is to prevent YOU from looking at yourself HONESTLY, so you believe in SUPERSTITIOUS tripe so that you can look DOWN on others around you to make yourself feel better about your OWN insecurities.

Jesus died for his OWN sins, not mine.
 
Lucidthots said:
No "every religion" does not have its "dark teachings."


I find that offensive. Not ALL religions have 'dark teachings'. But most MONOTHEISTIC ones do and they seduce people because of their reptilian ideology.

You satated that the "Bible" is full of violence......YOU MEAN THE OLD TESTAMENT!

JESUS' TEACHINGS ARE NOT IN THE "OLD TESTAMENT."

But his 'Father's' are. It's all the same anyway -- there are lots of evil and destructive passages from both testaments.

As far as I am concerened their is NO RELATION between Christianity and the Old Testament.

That means you only pick and choose what texts you want to believe as you shape God into your OWN image.

The Prophets Christ refers to in the Old Book is one thing......you do not see Christ revering "Joshua" however do you? NO YOU DO NOT!

As far as "Christianity" having blood on its hands.....that is not possible........like I said Pol Pot was not a Buddhist........the Inquisition etc had NOTHING to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ.


Then replace 'christianity' with 'christians'. It's wholeness is built on it's injustices towards others. Christianity hasn't changed much since the Dark Ages either. And more and more, like Islam, Christianity is becoming synonymous with terrorism itself.
 
sissy-boy said:

And more and more, like Islam, Christianity is becoming synonymous with terrorism itself.

My guess is that you are queer.
 
sissy-boy said:

Quit making Jesus a martyr -- for you maybe but NOT for 3/4 of the world's population. Jesus was responsible for his OWN death, not me, and not the Jews, and not the Romans.
And the ONLY thing that Jesus has done for me is to forcefeed me the image of a NUDE and BLOODY man who willingly accepts the torture in a Supreme act of sado-masochism.

The man is DEAD! The image and ideology live on because SO MANY people are afraid of seeking TRUE spirituality from God and invent for themselves any number of 'Gods' so that they can tyrannize and put shakles upon others. The idea is to prevent YOU from looking at yourself HONESTLY, so you believe in SUPERSTITIOUS tripe so that you can look DOWN on others around you to make yourself feel better about your OWN insecurities.

Jesus died for his OWN sins, not mine.

You are taking this myth WAAAAAAAYYYY... too seriously.

The story of Christ, is supposed to be a metaphor for your own life.
 
[QUOTE=Napoleon's Nightingale]ROFL ROFL ROFL. I don't think you have a grasp on history. During the Dark Ages all non-religious literature and art was considered heretical as was science. The Inquisitions took place during the Dark Ages.

Wow, nightingale, are you sure you should not change your name to mockingbird? The Inquisition came to prominence following the Reconquista of Spain, meaning Tomas de Torquemada's appointment in 1492, my friend, the bulk of obscenity attributed to it came about in the just prior to the Counter Reformation era. I must point out the "Dark Ages" are considered to be 476 AD (the fall of Rome) to Frank and Germanic invaders/migrants up to 1000 AD although this is increasingly being called the early Middle Ages. It is considered in transition following the small Carolingian Rennaissance around 800. There was no formal Inquisition then in the Dark Ages. The first Inquisitions were launched against the Albigensian/Cathar believers of Southern France in 1229 following the Treaty of Paris, invested with authority in Toulouse, Albi, Carcassone, France. Thus you are wrong historically on the issue of Inquisition in the Dark Ages unless you mean Middle Ages. But then what do I know about history.

If you want to consider the Middle Ages, instead of the smaller and antiquated "Dark Ages," then you arrive at roughly 476-1300 AD. In which case, your second point is easily demonstrated to be in error. The non-religious art and science heresy thing. Read The Mabinogion, Troilus and Cressida, Tristram et Isolde, The History of the Kings of Britain, Parzival (Wolfram von Eschenbach or Chretien de Troyes), Le Chansons de Geste, Le Chanson de Roland, The Nieblungenlieb and others including various takes on King Arthur and the Holy Grail. Or look at the flowering of the ideal of Courtly Amor, all the poetry it produced, the stories of Jongleur, Trouvier and Troubador. You see, the idea that non-religious creativity was heretical is false. Science wasn't considered heretical, for much of this time it just wasn't considered and when it was they went back to non-Christian science.

Your entire argument hinges on whether one worships Jesus or God. God is jealous, angry, and venegeful and that is self described by him.

Now look at your sentence here my friend, you don't believe in God and yet you accredit God with describing God's self (I prefer to stay away from gender descriptions for God who is beyond simple gender. "Him" is a sui generis descriptor). Your diction is a non sequiter. Which is it?

Obviously you believe God exists given your above statement, but you miss the point of my argument about transmission of the salvific plan. God inspires, God doesn't possess. I explained that to allow human freedom, God limits God's self. That means God's capacity to reveal God's self is limited by our capacity to comprehend and that is in part culturally conditioned. Growth and change in that comprehension only takes place over centuries. Hence what began as people who could not understand or articulate anything but a jealous, angry and vengeful God became the understanding that God is "love" over two thousand years. God is indeed very patient, waiting for us to learn, gently, lovingly guiding, never forcing. But there was a time in human experience could not understand that. I look forward to your response and be blessed.
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
I don't know where you get your information from but given the fact that you have been gravely mistaken on several key points so far I sudgest you find a new source. In terms of your list:

Adam - There must have been a first man. What difference does it make what his name was?

Noah - Most cultures have stories of a great flood that covered all the Earth and a single family surviving on a wooden boat. What difference does it make what his name was?

There's a BIG difference. The name and evidence would point to whether this is a complete HOAX or not. The truth of the matter is that it IS, and you know it. And the REASON that civilizations before the bible was written had a flood or a 'first man' is because the bible STOLE these stories from Paganism -- and THAT, my friend is a FACT!

Abraham - Unknown.

Moses - There are several non-biblical texts referring to Moses as the leader of the great exodus.

OH, you mean that movie with Charlton Heston, who insists that every criminal in the US own a gun??

Jaccob - Unknown.

Joshua - Unknown.

Solomon - There is historical and physical evidence sudgesting that Jedidiah aka Solomon did indeed exist.

Elijah - Unknown.

Jesus - There is some historical evidence that Jesus existed. More specifically, in Roman historical reccords.

The majority of names pulled out of your book of fables are 'unknown', which is reason enough for me to look at it ALL with deep suspicion.
 
Lucidthots said:
While most Germans were Christian, the leadership and the Secret Cults behind German National Socialism was Germanic Occult Revivalism, which I rather like, however I would prefer it without the Totalitarian Politics.



That's what a lot of historians would LIKE us to believe, the fact is that they were all faithful Catholics just like Hitler. There is TONS of data that backs this up. It's also why the Catholic church is making reparations to holocaust victims.
 
Lucidthots said:
My guess is that you are queer.


Well, THANK YOU, for not presuming that I'm straight. I get that a lot and it is really irritating. I have women hit on me all the time and it's kind of distressing! haha!!
 
Lucidthots said:
You are taking this myth WAAAAAAAYYYY... too seriously.

The story of Christ, is supposed to be a metaphor for your own life.



And that is EXACTLY why it is so obnoxious. Who on earth would want to emulate a man who tries so hard to be a whining martyer!! What kind of gory and egotistical man would ever do this and claim he is the 'son of god'. It really is very nauseating when you really think about it. And the images have been scaring children and invading their nightmares for only 2000 years, so we have people who are afraid of life because of all the hateful and vengeful words in this book and the penalties they will face in the 'afterlife'. The 'fear of God' is what stops people from being in control of thier own lives and being RESPONSIBLE for their own actions, while their leaders make all their choices for them.

It's a particularly disgusting form of fascism and to me is perhaps the most BLASPHEMOUS of all religious ideology because it is exactly the OPPOSITE of what it proclaims itself. I had the same thing happen to me as a child, and until I was about 10 I actually BELIEVED this stuff, but then it turned in to kind of what Santa was since there was never any evidence for this stuff, and then I knew it was a huge hoax. Most children know this, but the REAL damage isn't done to them until they get further brainwashed later in life. Brainwashed AWAY from God and IN to a cruel senile delinquent that others have used to control them.
 
sissy-boy said:

That's what a lot of historians would LIKE us to believe, the fact is that they were all faithful Catholics just like Hitler. There is TONS of data that backs this up. It's also why the Catholic church is making reparations to holocaust victims.


I don't know exactly where you get this, "data" from but it's obviously incorrect.
 
sissy-boy said:

That's what a lot of historians would LIKE us to believe, the fact is that they were all faithful Catholics just like Hitler. There is TONS of data that backs this up. It's also why the Catholic church is making reparations to holocaust victims.

Honestly, I was a member of the SS in an earlier life.

Black uniforms, Jack boots, swastikas, and the whole 9 yards.

The religion of NAZIsm was Germanic Occultism, Christianity (Lutheran) was the religion of the greater population, but the core was Germanic Occultism.
 

Attachments

  • 18716021-O.jpg
    18716021-O.jpg
    51.4 KB · Views: 2
  • crowd4.jpg
    crowd4.jpg
    90.9 KB · Views: 2
  • celebration.jpg
    celebration.jpg
    69.8 KB · Views: 2
  • fuhrer222.jpg
    fuhrer222.jpg
    83.1 KB · Views: 2
Lucidthots said:
Honestly, I was a member of the SS in an earlier life.

Black uniforms, Jack boots, swastikas, and the whole 9 yards.

The religion of NAZIsm was Germanic Occultism, Christianity (Lutheran) was the religion of the greater population, but the core was Germanic Occultism.

Correct. That and nihilism I would say based on Joachim C. Fest's works.
 
George_Washington said:
Correct. That and nihilism I would say based on Joachim C. Fest's works.

"Materialism" never served as the foundation of any society worth living in.
 

Attachments

  • 18716021-O.jpg
    18716021-O.jpg
    51.4 KB · Views: 1
sissy-boy said:

That's what a lot of historians would LIKE us to believe, the fact is that they were all faithful Catholics just like Hitler. There is TONS of data that backs this up. It's also why the Catholic church is making reparations to holocaust victims.


Acctually most of northern Germany is protestant.
 
"Materialism" never served as the foundation of any society worth living in.

What the hell is that supposed to mean. Nothing's wrong with Materialism.


And yes, many germans I read were protestant, but there were also catholics. THe worst part is, despite their "christian values" they lapped up everything Hitler threw at them. I don't know who was worse---the nazi government or the people who mindlessly believed them.

Materialism WAS a foundation of American Society, inhereted largely from an increasingly secular Enlightenment.
 
George_Washington said:
I don't know exactly where you get this, "data" from but it's obviously incorrect.


History books help, so does a little research, OUTSIDE of your church. And if you are going to try to tell me that STALIN killed more people than the Inquisition and the Crusades you are absolutely wrong. The whole of christian missions and the wars and death and destruction throughout 2000 years of history EASILY kills 100 times more than one man's life. You forget that out of christianity a thousand Hitler's and Stalin's were born. All killing in the name of their 'God' -- a god who hates all the same people as them -- the same twisted logic still stands proudly in the churches of America. So don't say I never warned ya.
 
sissy-boy said:

History books help, so does a little research, OUTSIDE of your church. And if you are going to try to tell me that STALIN killed more people than the Inquisition and the Crusades you are absolutely wrong. The whole of christian missions and the wars and death and destruction throughout 2000 years of history EASILY kills 100 times more than one man's life. You forget that out of christianity a thousand Hitler's and Stalin's were born. All killing in the name of their 'God' -- a god who hates all the same people as them -- the same twisted logic still stands proudly in the churches of America. So don't say I never warned ya.

I don't care what some pro-atheist website says about Hitler. I've read books about his life. Read Joachim C. Fest's, "Hitler". Fest mentions several times where the national socialists quarrled with Christian groups and that nihilism and Germanic pagan religions were behind their motivations. Fest is NOT some modern day American Christian with a bias. He was/is one of the most prominent journalists in Germany.

And everyone knows that Stalin was an atheist communist. Your assertion that Christianity breed Stalin is 100% ridiculous.
 
Back
Top Bottom