[Attila The Nun]

Ok, for starters:

Luke 6:20 to 6:26

20 Then he looked up at his disciples and said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
21 "Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled
22 "Blessed are those who will weep now for you will laugh
23 "Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heavan; for that is what thier ancestors did to the prophets
24 "But woe is to you who are rich for oyu have recieved for consolation.
25 "Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe for you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
26 "Woe to you when al speak well of you, for that is what the ancestors did to the false prophets."

[Subversive Rob]

But the Bible tells the oppressed masses to "turn the other cheek" and "render unto caesar". By positing a better life is possible if the masses keep their heads down and obey God's will the Bible supports the existing social system. Also it should be remember the Bible sanctifies private property ("Thou shalt not steal").

[Attila The Nun]

Exactly, Subversive Rob. The government taking someone's property is stealing, and not like that "stealing to feed your starving baby" stealing.

And the Bible tells us not to get pissed off an kill someone over something. I think it's good advice.

[Subversive Rob]

In other words it encourages the masses to accept the status quo, which is not in their interest, thus since it encourages the submission of the working class it helps keep the bourgeois in power.

[Attila The Nun]

Rich people aren't always opressive. It's simply rightists. Liberals like FDR, JFK ete. (both who were rich) were great for the masses. Remember, not all forms of capitalism are opressive.

[Subversive Rob]

By it's very nature wage labour is a form of "oppression" and "domination". Capitalism is also an obsolete social formation riven with contradiction that needs to be eliminated. On the good "rich people" often they are "good" merely because they are forced to do so or through enlightened self interest. After JFKs attempts on Cuba I can firmly say he was not one of the "good guys". And liberals may be "great" for the masses but throwing the masses a few more crumbs isn't the same as giving the masses the pie they made. And without liberal welfare programmes the rich would have been expropriated anyhow...

[Attila The Nun]

Ah, yes, opression of the workers! Why, look at how America is! They work 9 hour shifts in cubicles for fair pay! WE have to put a stop to this cruelty!

Simply put, your facts about capitalism are 100 years overdue. The days of Industrial cruelty in most democratic capitalistic societies are gone for the most part.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

And the Bible tells us not to get pissed off an kill someone over something. I think it's good advice.

That does not excuse the massive anti-people propaganda that it also incorprates, and is used to subjugate the masses by intoxicating them with the hysteria of religion, and telling the masses that heaven is worth more than this life, and that one can either go to heaven or get heaven on Earth and go to hell after they die. This is why Karl Marx said:


"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

By the way here is a good web site to go to in order to understand the Marxist stance on religion in relation to Marx's views on society, from which Marx makes his case on religion:

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/a/marx.htm

[Attila The Nun]

NDS, you haven't even read the Bible.

[Russkie]

Humans need at least one person to love or to be loved. I don't know about you, but people might develop mental problems or depression if they were anti-social.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

NDS, you haven't even read the Bible.

Please edit that one-liner immediately, or else I or others will have to report it to the moderator of this forum. By the way, please stop proselytizing to me, it is only counter-productive to your goals of bible-mongering through using the politics forum, for you know well that me and Subversive Rob are staunch atheist/agnostic communists. And please stop making everything into a personal issue, even though that is the systematic habit of debating of conservatives, as you are.

[Attila The Nun]

By the way here is a good web site to go to in order to understand the Marxist stance on religion in relation to Marx's views on society, from which Marx makes his case on religion:

By the way, I posted this in another thread, but I think it fits here too.

Communism was also once the ravings of a lunatic who lived in a cabin in the middle of the woods in Germany because he was angry about paying his taxes.

[Attila The Nun]

Please edit that one-liner immediately, or else I or others will have to report it to the moderator of this forum. By the way, please stop proselytizing to me, it is only counter-productive to your goals of bible-mongering through using the politics forum, for you know well that me and Subversive Rob are staunch atheist/agnostic communists. And please stop making everything into a personal issue, even though that is the systematic habit of debating of conservatives, as you are.

I think one-liners usually count as something that are irrelavent. That post was quite relavent, because, simply put, the only thing you know aobut my religion is from the Communist Manifesto.

[Todd D.]

Besides, I believe that One Liners are allowed in this section. They are only not allowed in the Issues section or when people just respond with "Yeah" or some damn emoticon. His post was completely on topic and exposed your ignorance to something that you obviously have no experience with. Completely justified.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Besides, I believe that One Liners are allowed in this section. They are only not allowed in the Issues section or when people just respond with "Yeah" or some damn emoticon. His post was completely on topic and exposed your ignorance to something that you obviously have no experience with. Completely justified.

Ofcourse to you its completely justified, because your an ignorant bible-mongerer like him. By the way this was his post:

NDS, you haven't even read the Bible.

How is his post "completely on topic" and "exposed" my "ignorance to something" I "obviously have no experience with"? And how the fuck is it "completely justified"? Your bias and nepotism is very obvious. And by the way, we were not discussing on the bible in this topic, so his one-liner was not "completely on topic".

[Spin]

None of the above

[Attila The Nun]

[quote="NationaliDemocratiSociali[/quote]Ofcourse to you its completely justified, because your an ignorant bible-mongerer like him. By the way this was his post[/quote]

Just because it has one line doesn't just make it a one-liner. A one-liner is something that adds nothing to the conversation like "lol" and "yeah" and"you suck". And a Bible-monger? I just happen to believe in it. Im no Bible-monger.

How is his post "completely on topic" and "exposed" my "ignorance to something" I "obviously have no experience with"? And how the fuck is it "completely justified"? Your bias and nepotism is very obvious. And by the way, we were not discussing on the bible in this topic, so his one-liner was not "completely on topic".

We are discussing the Bible. We're discussing religion, more specifically, Christianity (which everyone loves to pick on). You openly admitted that you had no knowledge of what christianity taught, and that you learned about religion from Karl Marx. I said this makes you ignorant of my religion. Now, please, go read the book before you comment on it (at least brush up on your Gospels).

[Comrade Ogilvy]

How is his post "completely on topic" and "exposed" my "ignorance to something" I "obviously have no experience with"? And how the fuck is it "completely justified"? Your bias and nepotism is very obvious. And by the way, we were not discussing on the bible in this topic, so his one-liner was not "completely on topic".

We are discussing the Bible.

Not we, only you, and you are stubbornly attempting to force this thread into a bible-debate.

We're discussing religion, more specifically, Christianity (which everyone loves to pick on).

Only you, for it is your obvious political agenda, to force the tolerance of religion on others by pointing out the few good things that religion teaches, while you ignore the massive negative things that religion inherently causes which dwarf any positive aspect in any religion, especially christianity.

You openly admitted that you had no knowledge of what christianity taught, and that you learned about religion from Karl Marx.

Thats a lie, I dare you to prove these obvious lies which spring from blatant and deliberate exaggeration of the truth.

I said this makes you ignorant of my religion. Now, please, go read the book before you comment on it (at least brush up on your Gospels).

No, I will not read that extremely anti-human scripture that you call "bible" and "gospel", because I believe in humans and humanism over invisible hallucinations that you call "God", "Devil", and "Satan". I believe in the worth of humans as being self-produced, rather than coming from the generosity of some foreign supernatural being. If you can't respect these beliefs of mine, I naturally can't respect your's either.

[Attila The Nun]

Whats the difference?

I'm no Bible Mongerer. I don't preach what I believe on this forum, and I only talk about religion when someone else brings it up.

Not we, only you, and you are stubbornly attempting to force this thread into a bible-debate.

We're discussing religion (though mainly christianity) and I bring up my facts from the horse's mouth. You still believe that the bible teaches the opression of the masses.

Only you, for it is your obvious political agenda, to force the tolerance of religion on others by pointing out the few good things that religion teaches,

Yes, teaching tolerence of religon is on my political agenda! I guess that makes me a radical!

Thats a lie, I dare you to prove these obvious lies which spring from blatant and deliberate exaggeration of the truth.

You said it in the post I'm answering!

No, I will not read that extremely anti-human scripture that you call "bible" and "gospel",

You didn't even read the book the whole thing is based on!

No, I will not read that extremely anti-human scripture that you call "bible" and "gospel", because I believe in humans and humanism over invisible hallucinations that you call "God", "Devil", and "Satan". I believe in the worth of humans as being self-produced, rather than coming from the generosity of some foreign supernatural being. If you can't respect these beliefs of mine, I naturally can't respect your's either.

I respect athiesm. I don't respect the hatred of religion. There's a difference.