| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
03 Oct 2005 11:01:44 PM |
| Object: |
Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=30288
Still Defending Marx
10/03/05
Karl Marx is the greatest philosopher of all time. Or at least this
is what many BBC Radio listeners suggested recently when asked to
nominate such a person. To the surprise of some, Marx topped the poll,
beating - by wide margins - thinkers ranging from Aristotle to
Kant.
Marx wrote many things, including admiring words about capitalism which
he regarded as a definite advance on previous economic arrangements.
The BBC result, however, underlines a strange blindness about Marx
persisting within Western societies.
In one sense, this is nothing new. In the 1930s, intrepid westerners
traveled to the USSR and returned saying that they had seen the future.
Somehow they managed not to see the purges, the collectivization, and
the gulags that resulted in the imprisonment and deaths of millions.
Communism, it is often said, was a godless system. This is not quite
right. Communism was godless insofar as it was based upon an atheistic
vision of man. Yet Communism did have its gods. It had its deities to
whom anything and anyone could be sacrificed.
One response is to claim that Marx's philosophy was distorted by
Lenin and Stalin. Marx himself, one often hears, was a humanist who
wished to liberate people from their chains. Other apologists insist
that one can distinguish between the young Marx and the old Marx: the
youthful philosopher being more humanistic than the grayer, more
callous political revolutionary.
Even cursory attention to Marx's writings quickly reveals the
hollowness of such defenses. A consistent anti-human vision features
throughout Marx's thought. For Marx, man is a being whose origins are
irrelevant, whose future is extinction, and whose present is beyond his
control. Even people living in Marx's Communist society have no
possibility of a meaningful existence. Marx once described Communist
society as one in which it would be possible "to do one thing today
and another tomorrow; to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon,
breed cattle in the evening and criticize after dinner, just as I
please."
This sounds idyllic until one realizes that, from Marxism's
perspective, none of these activities can have any value for humans.
For true materialists, there can be no qualitative difference between
reading and fishing, working or sleeping, living or dying. Everything
has the same value and therefore no value. In this world, there is no
difference between Mother Teresa's work and that of a concentration
camp guard. They share equally in a general irrelevance of everything
and everyone.
This tells us that Marxism cannot be interested in justice or liberty.
It insists that we are like driftwood, floating hither and thither on
the waves of history. In such a world, our lives matter naught. Our
deaths are irrelevant. We merely try to salvage whatever animal
satisfaction we can from life, before our essential nothingness is
finalized in our ultimate annihilation as living beings.
So much for Marx's humanism. A more serious problem with Marxist
philosophy is its legitimatizing of criminality.
By "criminal," I do not simply mean the occasional breaking of law.
Rather, I mean a situation in which people decide that they are above
law, that they are not subject to law, that law is merely another tool
of power. For if Marxism is right and materialism is true, then
systematic violence to pursue political goals is acceptable.
The irony is that while millions today know about the Nazis'
unspeakable crimes, rather fewer know about the atrocities committed by
Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot and other Marxists. It is as if there
has been a subtle agreement not to discuss these crimes. This studied
ignorance manifests itself when we observe red flags emblazoned with
hammers and sickles waved at demonstrations. Do their wavers know what
the red flag means for those who were enslaved and killed by Marxist
regimes? Why is Marxism's red flag not treated with the same contempt
rightly attached to the swastika?
Marx, of course, died years before his followers managed to seize
power. But one suspects that Marx would have applauded Communist use of
violence. Marx himself advocated hanging capitalists from the nearest
lamppost. "When our turn comes," Marx warned his opponents, "we
shall not disguise our terrorism."
Much violence has been done in the name of philosophies and religions,
including Christianity. The difference is that Christianity contains
moral criteria according to which we can judge and condemn such
activity on the part of Christians. Marxism never had and could never
have such standards. For in Marxist philosophy, there is no place for
love of God and love of neighbor. Perhaps that, above all, is what
makes Marx so unworthy of contemporary admiration.
Dr. Samuel Gregg is Director of Research at the Acton Institute in
Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is the author of Economic Thinking for the
Theologically Minded (University Press of America, 2001) and On Ordered
Liberty: A Treatise on the Free Society (Lexington Books, 2003)
.
|
|
| User: "rugged indivduals" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
06 Oct 2005 10:53:44 PM |
|
|
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1128398504.915917.90360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=30288
Still Defending Marx
10/03/05
Karl Marx is the greatest philosopher of all time. Or at least this
is what many BBC Radio listeners suggested recently when asked to
nominate such a person. To the surprise of some, Marx topped the poll,
beating - by wide margins - thinkers ranging from Aristotle to
Kant.
I refer y'all to the following:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19031937_divini-redemptoris_en.html
in which Pope Pius XI elucidates the evils of the communist system, and the
misfortune that will befall all those who in any way collude with it
(including the Conciliar Catholic Church.)
Some excerpts:
8. The Communism of today, more emphatically than similar movements in the
past, conceals in itself a false messianic idea. A pseudo-ideal of justice,
of equality and fraternity in labor impregnates all its doctrine and
activity with a deceptive mysticism, which communicates a zealous and
contagious enthusiasm to the multitudes entrapped by delusive promises. This
is especially true in an age like ours, when unusual misery has resulted
from the unequal distribution of the goods of this world. This pseudo-ideal
is even boastfully advanced as if it were responsible for a certain economic
progress. As a matter of fact, when such progress is at all real, its true
causes are quite different, as for instance the intensification of
industrialism in countries which were formerly almost without it, the
exploitation of immense natural resources, and the use of the most brutal
methods to insure the achievement of gigantic projects with a minimum of
expense.
9. ...According to this doctrine there is in the world only one reality,
matter, the blind forces of which evolve into plant, animal and man. Even
human society is nothing but a phenomenon and form of matter, evolving in
the same way. By a law of inexorable necessity and through a perpetual
conflict of forces, matter moves towards the final synthesis of a classless
society. In such a doctrine, as is evident, there is no room for the idea of
God; there is no difference between matter and spirit, between soul and
body; there is neither survival of the soul after death nor any hope in a
future life. Insisting on the dialectical aspect of their materialism, the
Communists claim that the conflict which carries the world towards its final
synthesis can be accelerated by man. Hence they endeavor to sharpen the
antagonisms which arise between the various classes of society. Thus the
class struggle with its consequent violent hate and destruction takes on the
aspects of a crusade for the progress of humanity. On the other hand, all
other forces whatever, as long as they resist such systematic violence, must
be annihilated as hostile to the human race.
11. ...Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link
that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is
proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the
care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective
production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children
then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is
denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the
community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise
this right.
15. How is it possible that such a system, long since rejected
scientifically and now proved erroneous by experience, how is it, We ask,
that such a system could spread so rapidly in all parts of the world? The
explanation lies in the fact that too few have been able to grasp the nature
of Communism. The majority instead succumb to its deception, skillfully
concealed by the most extravagant promises. By pretending to desire only the
betterment of the condition of the working classes, by urging the removal of
the very real abuses chargeable to the liberalistic economic order, and by
demanding a more equitable distribution of this world's goods (objectives
entirely and undoubtedly legitimate), the Communist takes advantage of the
present world-wide economic crisis to draw into the sphere of his influence
even those sections of the populace which on principle reject all forms of
materialism and terrorism. And as every error contains its element of truth,
the partial truths to which We have referred are astutely presented
according to the needs of time and place, to conceal, when convenient, the
repulsive crudity and inhumanity of Communistic principles and tactics. Thus
the Communist ideal wins over many of the better minded members of the
community. These in turn become the apostles of the movement among the
younger intelligentsia who are still too immature to recognize the intrinsic
errors of the system. The preachers of Communism are also proficient in
exploiting racial antagonisms and political divisions and oppositions. They
take advantage of the lack of orientation characteristic of modern agnostic
science in order to burrow into the universities, where they bolster up the
principles of their doctrine with pseudo-scientific arguments.
17. There is another explanation for the rapid diffusion of the Communistic
ideas now seeping into every nation, great and small, advanced and backward,
so that no corner of the earth is free from them. This explanation is to be
found in a propaganda so truly diabolical that the world has perhaps never
witnessed its like before. It is directed from one common center. It is
shrewdly adapted to the varying conditions of diverse peoples. It has at its
disposal great financial resources, gigantic organizations, international
congresses, and countless trained workers. It makes use of pamphlets and
reviews, of cinema, theater and radio, of schools and even universities.
Little by little it penetrates into all classes of the people and even
reaches the better-minded groups of the community, with the result that few
are aware of the poison which increasingly pervades their minds and hearts.
22. This, unfortunately, is what we now behold. For the first time in
history we are witnessing a struggle, cold-blooded in purpose and mapped out
to the least detail, between man and "all that is called God."[9] Communism
is by its nature anti-religious. It considers religion as "the opiate of the
people" because the principles of religion which speak of a life beyond the
grave dissuade the proletariat from the dream of a Soviet paradise which is
of this world.
58. See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves
to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save
Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking
whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their
aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first
to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur
of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully
penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the
godless.
58. See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves
to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save
Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking
whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their
aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first
to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur
of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully
penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the
godless.
58. See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves
to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save
Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking
whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their
aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first
to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur
of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully
penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the
godless.
'Nuff said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
06 Oct 2005 11:44:51 PM |
|
|
Who gives a flying ***** what any pope has to say???
Certainly not on alt.atheism, and not on soc.culture.jewish
"rugged indivduals" <brandon@comcat.com> wrote in message
news:iNWdneBz5t3WbNjeRVn-tg@comcast.com...
:
: I refer y'all to the following:
:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19031937_divini-redemptoris_en.html
: in which Pope Pius XI elucidates the evils of the communist system,
and the
: misfortune that will befall all those who in any way collude with it
: (including the Conciliar Catholic Church.)
:
: Some excerpts:
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged indivduals" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
08 Oct 2005 11:18:27 PM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:xZm1f.1274$bm.500@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Who gives a flying ***** what any pope has to say???
Certainly not on alt.atheism, and not on soc.culture.jewish
Wherever you find truth, revere it.
I refer y'all to the following:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19031937_divini-redemptoris_en.html in which Pope Pius XI elucidates the evils of the communist system, and the misfortune that will befall all those who in any way collude withit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
07 Oct 2005 12:14:10 PM |
|
|
rugged indivduals wrote:
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1128398504.915917.90360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=30288
Still Defending Marx
10/03/05
Karl Marx is the greatest philosopher of all time. Or at least this
is what many BBC Radio listeners suggested recently when asked to
nominate such a person. To the surprise of some, Marx topped the poll,
beating - by wide margins - thinkers ranging from Aristotle to
Kant.
I refer y'all to the following:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19031937_divini-redemptoris_en.html
in which Pope Pius XI elucidates the evils of the communist system, and the
misfortune that will befall all those who in any way collude with it
(including the Conciliar Catholic Church.)
Some excerpts:
8. The Communism of today, more emphatically than similar movements in the
past, conceals in itself a false messianic idea. A pseudo-ideal of justice,
As opposed to some alleged true messianic idea and some real ideal of
justice?
of equality and fraternity in labor impregnates all its doctrine and
activity with a deceptive mysticism, which communicates a zealous and
As opposed to some nondeceptive mysticism?
contagious enthusiasm to the multitudes entrapped by delusive promises. This
As opposed to the enthusiasm of the multitudes entrapped by other
delusive promises?
is especially true in an age like ours, when unusual misery has resulted
from the unequal distribution of the goods of this world. This pseudo-ideal
is even boastfully advanced as if it were responsible for a certain economic
progress. As a matter of fact, when such progress is at all real, its true
causes are quite different, as for instance the intensification of
industrialism in countries which were formerly almost without it, the
exploitation of immense natural resources, and the use of the most brutal
methods to insure the achievement of gigantic projects with a minimum of
expense.
And how did the Church contribute to industrialization?
9. ...According to this doctrine there is in the world only one reality,
matter, the blind forces of which evolve into plant, animal and man. Even
human society is nothing but a phenomenon and form of matter, evolving in
the same way. By a law of inexorable necessity and through a perpetual
conflict of forces, matter moves towards the final synthesis of a classless
society. In such a doctrine, as is evident, there is no room for the idea of
God; there is no difference between matter and spirit, between soul and
body; there is neither survival of the soul after death nor any hope in a
future life. Insisting on the dialectical aspect of their materialism, the
Communists claim that the conflict which carries the world towards its final
synthesis can be accelerated by man. Hence they endeavor to sharpen the
antagonisms which arise between the various classes of society. Thus the
class struggle with its consequent violent hate and destruction takes on the
aspects of a crusade for the progress of humanity. On the other hand, all
other forces whatever, as long as they resist such systematic violence, must
be annihilated as hostile to the human race.
11. ...Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link
that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is
proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the
care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective
production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children
then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is
denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the
community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise
this right.
15. How is it possible that such a system, long since rejected
scientifically and now proved erroneous by experience, how is it, We ask,
As opposed to other systems rejected by science?
that such a system could spread so rapidly in all parts of the world? The
explanation lies in the fact that too few have been able to grasp the nature
of Communism. The majority instead succumb to its deception, skillfully
And no one ever succumbed to the skillful deception of the Church?
It would appear that the Church did not want competition.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged indivduals" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
07 Oct 2005 07:17:04 PM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote
It would appear that the Church did not want competition.
Actually: "And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not
comprehend it."
How can darkness compete with light? Where the light shines, darkness must
flee.
The Church has a message of light. It does not view the situation with
atheistic materialism as competitive. It just needs to beam its light in all
directions and the darkness will disappear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "1954 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
07 Oct 2005 08:51:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 20:17:04 -0400, "rugged indivduals"
<brandon@comcat.com> wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote
It would appear that the Church did not want competition.
Actually: "And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not
comprehend it."
How can darkness compete with light? Where the light shines, darkness must
flee.
The Church has a message of light. It does not view the situation with
atheistic materialism as competitive. It just needs to beam its light in all
directions and the darkness will disappear.
....Which is why European history has been peaceful and serene for the
past 1,600 years...
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
07 Oct 2005 08:41:45 PM |
|
|
rugged indivduals wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote
It would appear that the Church did not want competition.
Actually: "And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not
comprehend it."
How can darkness compete with light? Where the light shines, darkness must
flee.
The Church has a message of light. It does not view the situation with
atheistic materialism as competitive. It just needs to beam its light in all
directions and the darkness will disappear.
The only light that the Church has is the one it shines at people's eyes
so that the people can see nothing else.
--
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
07 Oct 2005 09:28:16 PM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
rugged indivduals wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote
It would appear that the Church did not want competition.
Actually: "And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not
comprehend it."
How can darkness compete with light? Where the light shines, darkness must
flee.
The Church has a message of light. It does not view the situation with
atheistic materialism as competitive. It just needs to beam its light in all
directions and the darkness will disappear.
The only light that the Church has is the one it shines at people's eyes
so that the people can see nothing else.
You have forgotten the light of thousands burned at the stake
because they were supposed to be infidels, heretics or witches.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
08 Oct 2005 03:53:27 AM |
|
|
rugged indivduals wrote:
Actually: "And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not
comprehend it."
How can darkness compete with light? Where the light shines, darkness must
flee.
The "light" is speed, the religious people are speed freaks.
Their children sometimes need ritalin to keep up mentally with
the parents who live in intensive created "Love".
They like to think faster than others, to be doublethinking
and speaking with forked tongue. They create social power by
initiating boys into men, a process which involves a lot of
violence, fear and pain.
Does God have a place in science class ?
Yes, we need to examine the god concept from a scientific
point of view.
Whats God ?
To answer that question we need to examine when and how
the word has been used.
We find that it was used by the elders in the tribes
and societies even before the written history.
The most common theme in the creation myths which preceeded
written religions is like this:
The man is created by the gods.
The gods takes a soft boy, shapes him after their
own image, and then they blow life into him,
and that is how a boy becomes a man.
Many creation myths connect this with marriage too.
The boy is formed, has divine energy blown into
him, and then he is allowed to marry,
this gives him the holy spirit, and he becomes a new god.
Before an egyptian pharao called Eknaton invented monoteism
(and inspired the jews to adopt monoteism)
most creation myths talked about gods in plural.
Gods had a lot of human qualities, they could become angry,
hateful, caring,etc..
This leads us to the conclusion that the gods are simply the
elders, the older strong men who have been "created" into
men from starting out as boys.
The word god has also been used to mean the state of mind of
the newly created man, or god. The combination of fear,
strong will power, and the conviction women are trained
to give creates a speeded state of mind which feels good
and gives social power.
That state of mind is a lot like the speeded feeling you
get if you use centrally stimulating drugs, like coffee,
amphetamine, ritalin, strong spices, alcohol, etc..
God is also called Love, a special kind of love
which works like a drug.
You feel omniscient, allwise, allpowerful, because that
preparation gives the man a magic power over un-initiated
people.
You can think about mobbing in schools, that is about
the same thing. Weak youngsters are harassed, threatened,
forced to fight, so the weak are forced to become tough.
The older youngsters who knows how to manipulate and
shape personalities are forming the more naive youngsters
to become stronger and tougher, so they do not have
to feel inferior and experience lack of free will when
they meet stronger personalities.
You need to be very determined in this religious culture
to succeed in the social life. So they say that we live
in a deterministic social universe.
Religion is a system for creating gods out of boys, and a way
to create a power structure in the society.
From this we can also understand why more religious cultures
are more violent than secularized cultures.
We have tried for hundreds of years, if not thousands, to
abolish this creationist lifestyle and the social processes
creationism needs to work.
We have been successful in abolishing religion officially,
we have removed religious ideas from the laws in the
industrialized world, we have separated the state and the
church. (with the exception of USA)
But we have not yet been able to abolish the religious system
in real social life.
That is the big problem mankind must solve before we can
live as modern people.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged indivduals" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
08 Oct 2005 11:27:24 PM |
|
|
"Roger Johansson" <roger4911@gmail.com> wrote
We have tried for hundreds of years, if not thousands, to
abolish this creationist lifestyle and the social processes
creationism needs to work.
We have been successful in abolishing religion officially,
we have removed religious ideas from the laws in the
industrialized world, we have separated the state and the
church. (with the exception of USA)
But we have not yet been able to abolish the religious system
in real social life.
That is the big problem mankind must solve before we can
live as modern people.
--
Roger J.
It is imaginings such as yours that usher in the Antichrist, and
bring about the woes foretold in the Book of Revelations.
Now, imagine "a woman clothed in the sun" finally getting her request that
Russian be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart honored. Then comes the peace
and cohesive humanity you are pining away for.
It doesn't happen any other way. www.fatima.org
"IN THE END, My Immaculate Heart will triumph...Russia will be converted and
a period of peace will be granted to the world."
Your godless world gets a few years to play itself out. As you would seem to
hope, a lot of the faithful disappear, persecuted and destroyed because they
just won't share your imaginings. (Luke 18:8 "But yet the Son of Man when
he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?")
Enjoy your fantasy while it lasts. Victory belongs to the Lord, and to His
elect.
Just so you understand that your imaginings are more of the nature of a
delusional fantasy: are you so blind that you actually "imagine" that the
world's problems stem from religion, as opposed to godlessness?
And don't try to suggest that the fanatics who have "hijacked religion" to
spread terror are examples of "religion as the problem". Why, all the libs
swear Osama and Bush are batting for the same team. And students of
conspiracy know that they are. It's the same team that lobs bombs into
Catholic churches in Belfast one day, and then into Protestant churches the
next. It's the same team that beheads Christian missionaries, then turns
around and blows up a couple dozen Iraqi (Moslem) children. etc. etc. etc.
It's well orchestrated to make religion the problem so that some
uber-organization (like the U.N.) can help us get past the addiction to
religion. The puppeteers pulling all the strings are godless. "As it was in
the time of Noah, so will it be..." And what was it like in the time of
Noah? Man was getting good at worshipping himself.
Imagine that. Any similarities to today?
Here's your future world (not so distant): The nation-state has gone the way
of all obsolete inventions. Religion is something only insane people
(carefully quarantined from the rest of society) still talk about. And all
mankind gets together and pats itself on the back for success in ushering in
an endless era of peace and security. But... 1 Thessalonians 5:3 "When they
shall say, peace and security; then shall sudden destruction come upon them,
as the pains upon her that is with child, and they shall not escape."
Even the Eastern religions have an explanation for this in yin and yang.
When one thing (godlessness) reaches its fullest possible expression, its
opposite Emmanuel ("God with us") appears.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
08 Oct 2005 11:34:54 PM |
|
|
Your a fucking idiot.
The Book Of Revelations was written in "code" and is all about the Roman
persecution of Christianity. They believed that the Roman Empire was
evil and the "anti-Christ" and that Jesus would be returning any day to
save their asses.
This is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as taught to
me by Catholic Priests.
They do not believe it pertains to anything in the future!
"rugged indivduals" <brandon@comcat.com> wrote in message
news:W8qdnTLEGO2tAdXeRVn-vg@comcast.com...
:
: "Roger Johansson" <roger4911@gmail.com> wrote
: > We have tried for hundreds of years, if not thousands, to
: > abolish this creationist lifestyle and the social processes
: > creationism needs to work.
: >
: > We have been successful in abolishing religion officially,
: > we have removed religious ideas from the laws in the
: > industrialized world, we have separated the state and the
: > church. (with the exception of USA)
: >
: > But we have not yet been able to abolish the religious system
: > in real social life.
: >
: > That is the big problem mankind must solve before we can
: > live as modern people.
: >
: >
: > --
: > Roger J.
: >
: It is imaginings such as yours that usher in the Antichrist, and
: bring about the woes foretold in the Book of Revelations.
:
: Now, imagine "a woman clothed in the sun" finally getting her request
that
: Russian be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart honored. Then comes the
peace
: and cohesive humanity you are pining away for.
:
: It doesn't happen any other way. www.fatima.org
:
: "IN THE END, My Immaculate Heart will triumph...Russia will be
converted and
: a period of peace will be granted to the world."
:
: Your godless world gets a few years to play itself out. As you would
seem to
: hope, a lot of the faithful disappear, persecuted and destroyed
because they
: just won't share your imaginings. (Luke 18:8 "But yet the Son of Man
when
: he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?")
:
: Enjoy your fantasy while it lasts. Victory belongs to the Lord, and to
His
: elect.
:
: Just so you understand that your imaginings are more of the nature of
a
: delusional fantasy: are you so blind that you actually "imagine" that
the
: world's problems stem from religion, as opposed to godlessness?
: And don't try to suggest that the fanatics who have "hijacked
religion" to
: spread terror are examples of "religion as the problem". Why, all the
libs
: swear Osama and Bush are batting for the same team. And students of
: conspiracy know that they are. It's the same team that lobs bombs into
: Catholic churches in Belfast one day, and then into Protestant
churches the
: next. It's the same team that beheads Christian missionaries, then
turns
: around and blows up a couple dozen Iraqi (Moslem) children. etc. etc.
etc.
: It's well orchestrated to make religion the problem so that some
: uber-organization (like the U.N.) can help us get past the addiction
to
: religion. The puppeteers pulling all the strings are godless. "As it
was in
: the time of Noah, so will it be..." And what was it like in the time
of
: Noah? Man was getting good at worshipping himself.
: Imagine that. Any similarities to today?
:
: Here's your future world (not so distant): The nation-state has gone
the way
: of all obsolete inventions. Religion is something only insane people
: (carefully quarantined from the rest of society) still talk about. And
all
: mankind gets together and pats itself on the back for success in
ushering in
: an endless era of peace and security. But... 1 Thessalonians 5:3
"When they
: shall say, peace and security; then shall sudden destruction come upon
them,
: as the pains upon her that is with child, and they shall not escape."
:
: Even the Eastern religions have an explanation for this in yin and
yang.
: When one thing (godlessness) reaches its fullest possible expression,
its
: opposite Emmanuel ("God with us") appears.
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged indivduals" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
11 Oct 2005 02:20:48 AM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:C312f.579$Yl.455@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Your a fucking idiot.
The Book Of Revelations was written in "code" and is all about the Roman
persecution of Christianity. They believed that the Roman Empire was
evil and the "anti-Christ" and that Jesus would be returning any day to
save their asses.
This is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as taught to
me by Catholic Priests.
They do not believe it pertains to anything in the future!
I suggest you review the words of Pope John Paul II at Fatima (can be found
at www.fatima.org ) He says the Fatima secret deals with Revelations, in
particular with the thing about the dragon's tail dragging a third of the
stars of heaven down. (The stars of heaven are symbolic of the Catholic
prelates in many Catholic interpretations of Revelations.)
P.S. They are only Catholic priests if they teach what the Catholic Church
teaches.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
11 Oct 2005 02:36:11 AM |
|
|
A load of fucking rubbish by an evil man.
"rugged indivduals" <brandon@comcat.com> wrote in message
news:Wq6dne09k_lJ-tbenZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com...
: I suggest you review the words of Pope John Paul II at Fatima (can be
found
: at www.fatima.org ) He says the Fatima secret deals with Revelations,
in
: particular with the thing about the dragon's tail dragging a third of
the
: stars of heaven down. (The stars of heaven are symbolic of the
Catholic
: prelates in many Catholic interpretations of Revelations.)
: P.S. They are only Catholic priests if they teach what the Catholic
Church
: teaches.
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged indivduals" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
11 Oct 2005 10:27:13 PM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:aVJ2f.5928$Yl.3639@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
A load of fucking rubbish by an evil man.
Now you make yourself ridiculous. Please put forth an example of a "good"
man so the world can view the severity of your imbalance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
11 Oct 2005 11:30:45 PM |
|
|
***** you thick cow.
"rugged indivduals" <brandon@comcat.com> wrote in message
news:T6mdnSBb17EIH9HeRVn-gA@comcast.com...
:
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: news:aVJ2f.5928$Yl.3639@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
: >A load of fucking rubbish by an evil man.
: >
: Now you make yourself ridiculous. Please put forth an example of a
"good"
: man so the world can view the severity of your imbalance.
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Baldwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
12 Oct 2005 01:38:44 AM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <news@riain.org> wrote:
***** you thick cow.
FOAD Kike.
"rugged indivduals" <brandon@comcat.com> wrote in message
news:T6mdnSBb17EIH9HeRVn-gA@comcast.com...
:
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: news:aVJ2f.5928$Yl.3639@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
: >A load of fucking rubbish by an evil man.
: >
: Now you make yourself ridiculous. Please put forth an example of a
"good"
: man so the world can view the severity of your imbalance.
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rugged indivduals" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
12 Oct 2005 11:45:51 PM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
***** you thick cow.
Let me remind you, "Ad hominem scurrilities are not appropriate discourse
for philosophers."
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
13 Oct 2005 12:58:12 AM |
|
|
Exactly, and you are not a philosopher, nor is this philosophy class.
And I do not belong to the alt.philosophy.debate newsgroup.
"rugged indivduals" <brandon@comcat.com> wrote in message
news:EKmdnbMf64gee9DeRVn-vA@comcast.com...
:
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
: > ***** you thick cow.
:
: Let me remind you, "Ad hominem scurrilities are not appropriate
discourse
: for philosophers."
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged indivduals" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
14 Oct 2005 04:29:57 PM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:ZEm3f.6871$Ls.1356@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Exactly, and you are not a philosopher, nor is this philosophy class.
And I do not belong to the alt.philosophy.debate newsgroup.
"rugged indivduals" <brandon@comcat.com> wrote in message
news:EKmdnbMf64gee9DeRVn-vA@comcast.com...
:
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote:
: > ***** you thick cow.
:
: Let me remind you, "Ad hominem scurrilities are not appropriate
discourse
: for philosophers."
So stop cross-posting, and I'll perform a similar favor. Bless you, amigo.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
14 Oct 2005 11:46:24 PM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:ZEm3f.6871$Ls.1356@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Exactly, and you are not a philosopher, nor is this philosophy class.
You don't even know what the term philosopher means right ? You obviously
aren't one. Why you presume that others are not is another display of
idiocy.
And I do not belong to the alt.philosophy.debate newsgroup.
That would explain why you are posting to it.....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J B" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
10 Oct 2005 11:44:30 AM |
|
|
He could be a celebate literalist for all you know - not afucking idiot at
all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged indivduals" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
11 Oct 2005 02:25:50 AM |
|
|
"J B" <jessopb@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:mb-dnRorsPvxB9fenZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
He could be a celebate literalist for all you know - not afucking idiot at
all.
Thanks for the defense (I think.) Ad hominem scurrilities are not
appropriate discourse for philosophers (real, would-be, or quack)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
03 Oct 2005 11:54:02 PM |
|
|
I am a liberal and I do not defend Marx.
But you are an idiot, and a Jew-hating bigoted fucker.
"words of truth" <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1128398504.915917.90360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=30288
:
:
: Still Defending Marx
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Karl Hungus" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
04 Oct 2005 12:49:23 AM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:18o0f.1358$K8.861@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
I am a liberal and I do not defend Marx.
But you are an idiot, and a Jew-hating bigoted fucker.
So was Marx! ;^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
04 Oct 2005 01:08:40 AM |
|
|
Very true -- So "words of truth" *cough* and Karl Marx are exactly
alike!
"Karl Hungus" <karlhungus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1qidnZ_5y95yit_enZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in message
: news:18o0f.1358$K8.861@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
: >I am a liberal and I do not defend Marx.
: >
: > But you are an idiot, and a Jew-hating bigoted fucker.
:
:
: So was Marx! ;^)
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Allen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
05 Oct 2005 12:45:46 PM |
|
|
Riain Barton wrote:
I am a liberal and I do not defend Marx.
Ron Allen answers:
If you do not defend Karl Marx, then do you
find anything of value in what Marx wrote?
Or, do you simply disagree with Marx? And,
if so, can you tell us why?
<><><><><><><><><><><>
"Karl Marx's revolution in philosophy explicitly
renounced the normative tradition of philosophical
ethics while affirming the heritage of positive
science."
-- Donald Clark Hodges
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
04 Oct 2005 06:30:28 AM |
|
|
In <1128398504.915917.90360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "words of
truth" <wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote:
Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx?
Why are some still defending a two thousand year old text of badly written
myths?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2D511CBB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
04 Oct 2005 09:25:56 AM |
|
|
On 3 Oct 2005 21:01:44 -0700, "words of truth"
<wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote:
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=30288
Still Defending Marx
10/03/05
Karl Marx is the greatest philosopher of all time. Or at least this
is what many BBC Radio listeners suggested recently when asked to
nominate such a person. To the surprise of some, Marx topped the poll,
beating - by wide margins - thinkers ranging from Aristotle to
Kant.
Marx wrote many things, including admiring words about capitalism which
he regarded as a definite advance on previous economic arrangements.
The BBC result, however, underlines a strange blindness about Marx
persisting within Western societies.
Marx would have been just as appalled at the Soviet Union's perversion
of his work as most "liberals" are.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
| User: "G*rd*n" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
04 Oct 2005 09:29:56 AM |
|
|
<wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote:
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=30288
Still Defending Marx
...
Karl Marx is the greatest philosopher of all time. Or at least this
is what many BBC Radio listeners suggested recently when asked to
nominate such a person. To the surprise of some, Marx topped the poll,
beating - by wide margins - thinkers ranging from Aristotle to
Kant.
Marx wrote many things, including admiring words about capitalism which
he regarded as a definite advance on previous economic arrangements.
The BBC result, however, underlines a strange blindness about Marx
persisting within Western societies.
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>:
Marx would have been just as appalled at the Soviet Union's perversion
of his work as most "liberals" are.
That's not exactly rocket science, though. We're talking
about "greatest philosopher" status here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Are Liberals Still Defending Marx? |
04 Oct 2005 11:44:54 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:29:56 +0000 (UTC), (G*rd*n) wrote:
<wordsoftruth21@lycos.com> wrote:
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=30288
Still Defending Marx
...
Karl Marx is the greatest philosopher of all time. Or at least this
is what many BBC Radio listeners suggested recently when asked to
nominate such a person. To the surprise of some, Marx topped the poll,
beating - by wide margins - thinkers ranging from Aristotle to
Kant.
Marx wrote many things, including admiring words about capitalism which
he regarded as a definite advance on previous economic arrangements.
The BBC result, however, underlines a strange blindness about Marx
persisting within Western societies.
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>:
Marx would have been just as appalled at the Soviet Union's perversion
of his work as most "liberals" are.
That's not exactly rocket science, though. We're talking
about "greatest philosopher" status here.
That's sort of equivalent to "smartest guy on the short bus", isn't
it? <G>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
