Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Religion and stuff

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 23 May 2016, 07:25
I realize that some of my objections to the whole scheme have the effect of making me look selfish or even childish, but so be it. We're all "children" in the eyes of the Creator ("Except ye become as little children") so, to some extent, I suppose I'm justified. I just wish we had better relations, i.e., I could get emancipated by the court, get the keys to the Volvo, and go be an adult on my own turf and terms.

If you remember, the main objection Lucifer had was that he didn't get any respect or any real independence from his dad. The issue with creating human kind was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back. Honestly, reading between the lines, I don't think Lucifer seriously cared about our existence, as he must have known we'd get the same bum's rush from Dear Ol' Dad as he did.

I puzzle more over the character of Jesus than I do Lucifer. What's his part in this farce? What's in it for him? He makes a mockery of his parents (including the whole means by which humans are conceived in the first place), law and order, religion, and ultimately even death. He purposely picks 12 of the dimmest bulbs to tell his story after he departs. The whole thing sounds more like a lark or a troll than any great spiritual apotheosis.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 23 May 2016, 08:28
Comrade Gulper wrote:
I just wish we had better relations, i.e., I could get emancipated by the court, get the keys to the Volvo, and go be an adult on my own turf and terms.

Yes, you want to be the most high. You want the same powers he has. You are a part of him, but you are not the totality.

It's our job as a species to work towards having control over those levels of power technologically, while also working towards the ethical framework required to use that responsibly. And even then unless the laws of physics somehow upend to where it wouldn't present a threat to collective security, we will likely never as individuals have the powers of God. Maybe as a collective body.

Quote:
If you remember, the main objection Lucifer had was that he didn't get any respect or any real independence from his dad.

Rather, that God told him to kneel to Adam in Islam, and in Christianity that he wasn't seen as God's right-hand man just because. Lucifer is a whiny overly-entitled asshole who God uses and allowed to fall to create free will for all those made in his image. Including even the djinn, the first to use free will. Whether he consciously knows it or not, and I'm ambivalent about that fact, his basic status in the Book of Job still holds.

Quote:
He makes a mockery of his parents (including the whole means by which humans are conceived in the first place),

He had a very close relationship with his mother. His stepfather also loved him dearly and is patron saint of fatherhood. Overall, aside from spending his teenage years backpacking across Wherever The Hell, his family relationships were relatively normal,.

Quote:
law and order,

Yes, he challenged the Roman Empire and the kings of the earth. Good for him.

Quote:
religion,

Yes, he challenged the hypocritical Pharisees and sellout Sadducees, propagandists for the kings of the earth. Good for him.

Quote:
and ultimately even death.

Yes, he conquered death. Good for him.

Quote:
He purposely picks 12 of the dimmest bulbs to tell his story after he departs.

The Apostles were largely intelligent, politically active men, some of whom were more than superficially literate which was rare for a Levantine man of that time period. And all of whom demonstrated ability at managing a church in the aftermath of his death.

Quote:
The whole thing sounds more like a lark or a troll than any great spiritual apotheosis.

Only to the willfully blind. Disagreement with the claims made is fine, but that statement is not factually born out.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 23 May 2016, 16:18
Comrade Gulper wrote:
Meanwhile, Yeqon apparently wants to sell me Ecstasy.
NO! NO! I AM NOT ENDORSING THE USE OF ANY KIND OF PSYCHOACTIVE SUBSTANCE BY ANYONE OF OUR COMRADES ON THIS SITE, EVER!

By the Light of Apollo I have sworn an oath to Aesculapius the Physician himself, whereby: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel."

It's just that every once in a while, I can't help but reminisce with a slight twinge of melancholy, how beautiful the night sky looked during my first ever visit to La-La Land.

Another reason I brought it up is because historically, there is significant overlap between religion and chemically induced altered states of mind. They say monks invented alcohol. Jesus liked to drink. There's a theory that Moses' moment of epiphany came to him while inhaling the smoke of the burning bush, i.e. Cannabis Sativa. Rastafarians also use Ganja in their ceremonies to praise Jah. Israel and India export psychedelic and goa trance music respectively. Ravers used to call the venues they would meet in the "New Cathedrals". Heroin addicts often refer to their daily dose as "our daily bread". Opium has been called the Milk of Paradise; etc.

As for Marx: "Religion is the opium of the masses."

Even though I don't agree with a significant number of things that Marx had to say about religion, I absolutely love the above quote. Among other things like promoting peaceful coexistence and virtue, to me religion in layman's terms is supposed to get you high. Religion is supposed to be fun God damn it! It should serve in bringing healthy and positive emotions to the practitioner, and facilitate an individual's journey through life in discovering oneself; otherwise the way I see it religion reverts to becoming intrinsically reactionary, and a force to be dealt with the same way the Bolsheviks did.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 23 May 2016, 18:23
Yeqon, I was making a joke there. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

I hold the same position on drugs as Frank Zappa. Good for others in some circumstances, otherwise we wouldn't have a significant portion of our greatest works of art. But disagreeable to me personally.

Miss Strangelove, you will undoubtedly be one of the Elect. Pax vobiscum.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 07 Jun 2016, 03:18
Yeqon wrote:
...religion is supposed to get you high.
Image
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 07 Jun 2016, 03:39
Yeqon wrote:
...religion is supposed to get you high.

No, it's supposed to get you stuff. Only later did it turn into an insurance policy from a fly by night operation whose owner is perpetually out of office.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 08 Jun 2016, 23:04
I prefer the notion that an afterlife is not assured and that only service to a particular Great Spirit gains you access to their realm. But since none of these powers have any interest in contacting us anymore they are either unwilling or incapable.

Note that while I believe ancestors can be communed with this doesn't imply they are having some sort of afterlife but rather that your continued existence is a vessel through which they can be maintained (in other words the death of a line is the final loss of any kind of connection ancestors have to existence itself).
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 08 Jun 2016, 23:06
Comrade Gulper wrote:
No, it's supposed to get you stuff.
Tsk-tsk-tsk. I see that cynical American materialism has so deeply infiltrated even the most fundamental spiritual values of its inhabitants that not even a hot pot smoking nun was able to make you see the light. I am disappoint.

On my birthday just a few days ago I received this as a gift:

Image


It's Holy Cognac from France, which was I'm guessing distilled with Holy Water. Now are Catholics bad-ass or what man? I just woke up having gotten drunk off of it for the second time and guess what, no hang-over, no headache, nothing. I wake up feeling better than I did before I drank. It's booze that actually cleanses the body and soul. That comrades, is what I call a divine miracle.
Last edited by Yeqon on 08 Jun 2016, 23:31, edited 1 time in total.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 08 Jun 2016, 23:31
For the record, "religion is supposed to get you high" lines up better to my understanding than "supposed to get you stuff." It's an aesthetic, experiential sense of the transcendent.

It may be because I was raised Catholic, though from a very lapsed and irreligious family. While they've mainstreamed and Protestantized a lot in recent decades, traditional American Catholics have always looked a little funny at American worship of the flag, the market, etc. as blasphemous and leading to unhealthy social atomization. We're all about that transcendent experience, the Eucharist is the centerpiece of the Mass.

I'd now consider myself Protestant, but a very liturgical, Catholic-sympathetic Protestant. Hence my choice of Episcopalianism.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 09 Jun 2016, 00:55
But the whole point of communing with the deity of your choice is to secure you bliss and eternal life...which boils down to Getting Something.


If all we are are children who live for a time, then pass into nothingness on their watch, then what's the point of asking for eternal life? You may as well just Ask For Stuff, which is exactly what the ancient religions did.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 09 Jun 2016, 01:14
A God who gives nothing deserves nothing.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 09 Jun 2016, 01:53
Dagoth Ur wrote:
A God who gives nothing deserves nothing.

I'm actually agreeing with a post on this subject made by Dagoth.


But, look, guys, Jesus on the cross makes for a classic anti-Roman paradox. "Use your Greek logic and Roman pragmatism on this puzzle, and see if you don't choke!" is the unspoken wish of every crypto-Jewish zealot and "seer of revelations" that compiled the New Testament.

It was always political. It was always the resentment of the Jews who had been so soundly defeated that they couldn't even see the point of remaining Jews anymore. So the smarter ones among them (who most assuredly weren't the original 12 "disciples" of Jesus) put on their thinking caps and cobbled together a religion that would survive every attempt by the authorities to muzzle it. Instead of a live prophet, a dead son of God who defeated the Devil (and the Romans) and rose from the dead.

Oh, and let's write it in pidgin Greek so neither the Sanhedrin or the Romans get a hold of it until it's too widespread to deal with.

The history of Christianity is the history of resentment, revenge, conniving, maneuvering, and politicking. There is no spiritual content worth speaking of, because there's nothing original in it. It's to be understood politically, culturally, and historically. Once you realize that, you have the key to the Holy Grail, and you're done with it like I am.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 09 Jun 2016, 02:04
Dagoth Ur wrote:
A God who gives nothing deserves nothing.

It hasn't been my experience that Christ "gives nothing."

Comrade Gulper wrote:
It was always political. It was always the resentment of the Jews who had been so soundly defeated that they couldn't even see the point of remaining Jews anymore.

Except the Jews who became Christians were a small minority of Jewry. Jews still exist and are about 4% of the American population, as someone from Philly you know this full well.

Also, most of the Jews who did become Christians veered towards James' faction which believed they should remain Jews, upholding the Jewish ritual law as part of tradition and believing Christ's message was meant first and foremost for the Jewish people. It was gentile converts who made up the backbone of Paul's faction.

Quote:
So the smarter ones among them (who most assuredly weren't the original 12 "disciples" of Jesus) put on their thinking caps and cobbled together a religion that would survive every attempt by the authorities to muzzle it. Instead of a live prophet, a dead son of God who defeated the Devil (and the Romans) and rose from the dead.

St. Peter was very much still alive during the rise of Paul, Luke, etc. He sided with Paul and was the arbiter between him and James, Jesus' brother who (while his status as an Apostle is debated; Catholics say he's the same man as "James the Lesser," everyone else thinks that's them trying to weirdly work the "perpetual virginity" doctrine into the Gospels by implying James was really Mary's nephew and thus when it says "son" it just means "family member") certainly was also contemporary with the Twelve Apostles.

Quote:
Oh, and let's write it in pidgin Greek so neither the Sanhedrin or the Romans get a hold of it until it's too widespread to deal with.

Greek was the trade language of the Eastern Empire, including Palestine. Any educated Jew could speak it, and most in the trades in port cities knew enough to at least facilitate commerce. Also most of Paul's converts were in fact Greek, a major center of population in the Empire. He writes letters to the Corinthians, the Galatians, etc.

Quote:
The history of Christianity is the history of resentment, revenge, conniving, maneuvering, and politicking.

Also the history of liberation, progress, innovation. Christianity was the backbone of breaking the shackles of women and slaves in the Empire. Christianity was tied at the hip with the early labor movement. Christianity was at the forefront of our own Civil Rights Movement.

Quote:
There is no spiritual content worth speaking of, because there's nothing original in it. It's to be understood politically, culturally, and historically.

To say that is to do a disservice to the genuinely held beliefs of millions of Christians world over, who certainly do speak of its spiritual content and do not simply think of it in political terms.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 09 Jun 2016, 02:37
It's funny how this Jesus has something to say to pretty much everyone on the planet except me. Heck, he sees me trash talking him. Why doesn't he drop in and smack me upside the head and let me know what's up? He seems to be the sort of guy who'd enjoy that. Maybe he'd just do something inscrutable like kiss me on the forehead and then drop one of his bizarre parables.

His religion gave the Papacy a chance to preserve Roman culture among the barbarians. Fair enough, except any one of the other Oriental cults could have done the same. If Constantine had declared for Sol Invictus, we'd be pretty much in the same spot as we are now. Same bank holidays, same legacy of Crusades and Inquisitions, same suffering of Galileo, etc., etc.

In the meantime, if our allegiance is so crucial to him, then let him come down off his cross and explain himself. It's long, long overdue. He doesn't need to do the whole thunder, lightning, Four Horsemen stage schtick. We've all been to a Kiss concert. Let him appear at the UN, inform us in no uncertain terms that he's back to be Large And In Charge, and start dealing out the rewards he so generously claims to have in store for us.

^^Reading back on the above, it does sound almost like a gangsta rap diss track, but maybe typing out my actual raw feelings does me some good at times. Apologies to those who probably groan when they read these "shock and bore" posts.
Last edited by Comrade Gulper on 09 Jun 2016, 03:01, edited 1 time in total.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 09 Jun 2016, 03:00
Comrade Gulper wrote:
It's funny how this Jesus has something to say to pretty much everyone on the planet except me.

He has something to say to all humans. The Sermon on the Mount makes that clear and is also the encapsulation of what he has to say.

Quote:
Why doesn't he drop in and smack me upside the head and let me know what's up? He seems to be the sort of guy who'd enjoy that.

What in the Gospels leads you to assume that? Because the record shows he only "smack[ed people] upside the head" when force was absolutely required.

Quote:
His religion gave the Papacy a chance to preserve Roman culture among the barbarians. Fair enough, except any one of the other Oriental cults could have done the same. If Constantine had declared for Sol Invictus, we'd be pretty much in the same spot as we are now.

But the cult of Sol Invictus did not have the same principles of social justice Christendom did. It emphasized God's power while ignoring God's love and the personal experience of the divine in all of us. In fact, it's awfully similar to say, Mormonism.

I frankly could not care less about "preserving Roman culture among the barbarians." The Romans were rightly kicked out of Judea after beating on the locals and tearing down the Temple, as they did so often. Christ is the Third Temple, who lives in our hearts, and I'd agree with Hitler that the "weak humanism" of Christianity helped destroy Rome despite the attempt to neuter its radicalism by careerists under Constantine. Good riddance, erin go bragh, all that stuff. Fallen is Babylon the Great.

Quote:
same legacy of Crusades and Inquisitions,

The Crusades were textbook imperialism and mostly indefensible. Also almost entirely politically motivated on the grounds of "let's get Europe to stop killing each-other and gain leverage over Byzantium." And most of the worst atrocities of the Crusades were Christian vs. Christian where both sides would have viewed themselves as acting with Christ behind them and the other side as betrayers of his teachings, like the sacking of Byzantium or the Children's Crusade debacle. Funnily enough, the only explicitly religious part of the project ("secure a safe route for pilgrims to Jerusalem") which was rapidly abandoned as the main reason for war is the only remotely justifiable part.

The witch-burnings were largely carried out under rule of the Spanish crown. The Inquisition courts saved more people accused than not, you were much more likely to get a fair trial in them than the royal courts. And you could appeal to the church for clemency and a re-trial if found guilty by the throne. Many people did and were freed that way. Old "never again the burning times!" anti-Catholic myths about the Inquisition have been up-ended over the last few decades among mainstream historians. My source on that is actually my medieval history professor, and I'm at the most notoriously left-wing university in the country.

Quote:
same suffering of Galileo, etc., etc.

I love how New Atheists bring up Galileo every five seconds. Y'all realize Galileo was persecuted almost entirely on non-religious grounds, right? He considered himself a pretty staunch Catholic, the feuding with the Pope that's been extremely common among well-intentioned Catholics throughout history had nothing to do with it.

He was persecuted for teaching something unconfirmed; the needed parallax shift showing the changing relationship to astronomical bodies to confirm his hypothesis wasn't shown with telescopes at the time. He did not find the proof to confirm his hunch, only vague crumbs in that direction, many of which actually had no relevance or truth whatsoever like "the tides obviously show the Earth shakes and moves." The parallax shift was shown by Jesuit astronomers by the way. And yes, for bitching out the Pope which took away his Jesuit support. It's a question of free speech vs. set-in-one's-ways rigidity, not the noble science vs. barbarism of faith.

But no, go ahead, take one offhand "it contradicts the Scripture" comment as the main reason for why he was jailed and ignore the actual proceedings, up to and including the latter half of that "Scripture" comment where the Cardinal in question demands proof to justify the upheaval in our understanding of the universe.

Quote:
In the meantime, if our allegiance is so crucial to him, then let him come down off his cross and explain himself.

He did.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 09 Jun 2016, 03:23
This whole thing could be solved in an instant with a timely UN appearance. All the problems of religious, political, cultural, and class strife would disappear in a second flat.

Instead, we receive an assurance that the entire point of human existence is to end up in the arms of an Antichrist who will plunge the world into plague, war, and eternal damnation. Geez, with friends like these...
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 09 Jun 2016, 03:28
Mmmk, your view on Christianity seems very influenced by premillenialist fundies.

The Antichrist is traditionally interpreted as Emperor Nero and the events of Revelations as historical allegory on the Church's earliest days and the last days of the Apostles, by both Catholics and Orthodox.

Protestants generally historically believed in postmillenialism, where it is prophetic because it logically makes the most sense that John (with all his acid-trip John-ness) was speaking prophetically. But it's also explicitly said that the Antichrist will not have the whole world, he will be defeated at Golgotha by a coalition of various other rival powers. And the whole point is it's our job to work towards the kingdom of heaven, the Antichrist is the last reactionary force working against that. This is the view of, for example, John Wesley. Or even John Calvin or Martin Luther, with their obligatory added "and that will be the Papacy" stuff.

Then you have Left Behind fundie types. These are "Hollywood's version is totally real and it'll be some guy who rules the world and everything'll be plunged into hell and then Jesus will come back." This is a heresy that has only existed since the 1900s, with the Scofield movement. It relies on severely tortured, stretched readings of Revelations. And almost always leads to "so let's set the stage for Jesus coming back by fulfilling the fire-and-brimstone" stuff, meaning they literally actively impede the fulfillment of the Kingdom of Heaven and increase human suffering. They are heretics.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 09 Jun 2016, 03:56
But it's obviously more important for some people to have faith in him than others.

He isn't exactly blowing up my cell phone in a bid to get my faith back. I realize my life is pretty cheesy and insignificant in the grand scheme of things but, still, every grain of sand, right?

I'm not a woman, which probably lowers my value in his eyes. Who wants a sausage party at the club? He's already got himself a posse.

Of course, if I was a woman, what would his excuse be then? He's Just Not That Into You, I suppose.

I really don't think he cares about my soul one way or the other, which is probably bad news for me, ya know.


Honestly, I'm happier believing he doesn't exist than I would be if I believed he did exist and simply didn't care to return my calls. But when you're livin' large, you gots priorities.

^ Again, the whole point is this: If he's there, he's awfully quiet. He could answer 2,000 years of speculation with a single conference call to the UN. Or announce a major Youtube exclusive. A two minute speech could clear it all up and remove all doubts. We're waiting.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Jun 2016, 08:12
Pioneer
Post 19 Jun 2016, 08:41
Instruction for those in the dark on catholics. In 1962 a council was convened in rome known as "Vatican 2". The outcome of this council was a series of statements on ecumenism, religious liberty, the nature of the church and on the mass. All of these statements were heretical. They contradicted statements made in prior councils, councils which taught infallibly. So the only conclusion catholics could make after vatican 2 was that the church had been wrong for 19 centuries, or it was wrong now. But the extraordinary magisterium of the church cannot err, therefore, vatican 2 had nothing to do with the true catholic church. A true pope cannot teach heresy, a true council cannot teach heresy. So since all of the popes since the death of PiusXII have taught heresy, they have been false popes. There has been no pope since 1958.
what you see today when you see a "catholic " church is a new religion created in 1962. This religion is called the novus ordo, latin for new order. It has no relationship to catholicism, nor do any of the "popes" like Bergoglio("Francis") have any relation to the papacy.
Most "catholics" are novus ordo, even conservative catholics. The only real catholics are traditional catholics. You will never find them in the novus ordo. They have their own priests and chapels. They use the roman missals issued no later than 1958. The mass is in latin with the priest "ad orientem", or facing east, with his back to the laity. They do what catholics have done for 19 centuries.
Now on the issue of communism, it is very interesting. Socialism teaches that individuals may not own the means of production either as individuals or in association. I have no knowledge of an objection to it, unless socialism denies the existence of God.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 24 Jun 2016, 06:25
Err, so Boniface VIII, John XXIII, Alexander VI, and Leo X were Popes, but Francis is not?

Suits me, I suppose. The first four are my favorites because they are the indisputably most corrupt, pretentious, and frankly hilarious Catholic potentates to read about. Machiavelli dearly loved Alexander VI for giving him so much to wax philosophical on. The same for Dante and Boniface VIII.

Francis I kinda like for his surprisingly progressive stances, although I'm still not ready to eat the wafer and call him my Infallible Middle Man.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.