18 Aug 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou raise a good point. Can society be without a religion of some kind? For example, did Lenin and Stalin become godheads for their athiestic secular state? Is there evidence for this in regards to Lenin being embalmed as if he were a Pharaoh god as thousands upon thousands come from all around to look upon his dead corpse under glass?
if atheism destroyed the USSR, it shouldn't have taken 70 years.
unless you mean that early-mid soviet culture was theistic, with lenin/stalin as the godhead. their images winding down til it could no longer be supported as a religion.
Make no mistake, religion was viewed by both Lenin and Stalin as subversive in terms of the overall health of society. Yet when it was taken away from society, the society in which it was supressed then crumbled in merely 70 years time. You may think 70 years is a long time, however, in comparison to other world powers throughout time it is less than a blink of an eye.
18 Aug 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWait just a second!!
I thought I responded to this.
Suppressing the peoples' right to worship or not as they please turns a government into an oppressive regime. Suppressing religion or suppressing atheism are both bad ideas.
No, it just could'nt be!!
Not.....making....sense......
Nope, I guess its true. We actually agree on something!!!!!!!!!
18 Aug 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIs that what Christ did? Did he go around threatening people to repent? I don't think so. People either believed what he said, thus repenting, or blew him off as a mad man or a liar or a blasphemer. Either way, no one was threatened.
The Christian God, if he exists, suppresses atheism with threats of torture.
18 Aug 07
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyIs Christianity limited to what Jesus said and did? What about trinitarianism? What about the OT?
Is that what Christ did? Did he go around threatening people to repent? I don't think so. People either believed what he said, thus repenting, or blew him off as a mad man or a liar or a blasphemer. Either way, no one was threatened.
What about all the writers like Paul, Jude etc?
19 Aug 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe term "Christianity" implies that one is a follower of Christ. In fact, the entire New Testament has its focus on Christ. In fact, hundreds of Old Testament prophecies speak of the Messiah who was to come and save us all. So yes, I would say the Bibles focus is on Jesus so what he says has great significance.
Is Christianity limited to what Jesus said and did? What about trinitarianism? What about the OT?
What about all the writers like Paul, Jude etc?
19 Aug 07
Originally posted by whodeyThat's not what I asked.
The term "Christianity" implies that one is a follower of Christ. In fact, the entire New Testament has its focus on Christ. In fact, hundreds of Old Testament prophecies speak of the Messiah who was to come and save us all. So yes, I would say the Bibles focus is on Jesus so what he says has great significance.
19 Aug 07
Originally posted by Rajk999What about them? They wrote of Christ as well. In fact, Christ did not write about himself, rather, we are dependant upon his disciples and the disciples contemporaries comments in regards to his life and what he was all about.
So what about Paul and Jude?
19 Aug 07
Originally posted by whodeyWhat about when Paul says something that appears to conflict with what Christ said?
What about them? They wrote of Christ as well. In fact, Christ did not write about himself, rather, we are dependant upon his disciples and the disciples contemporaries comments in regards to his life and what he was all about.
19 Aug 07
Originally posted by Rajk999I think you will find that lots of things APPEAR to be in conflict in the Bible when they actually are not. For examle, Christ was accused of breaking the Sabbath, however, even though he was breaking the letter of the law he was not breaking the spirit of the law as he later showed them.
What about when Paul says something that appears to conflict with what Christ said?
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by Rajk999I think you can add this group to the camp that approves of collectivism: Hippie burn-outs whose brains don't function effectively. Look at how messed up San Francisco and Berkeley are. They were the zenith of hippie drug culture in the 1960s and now that these old burn-outs are in control of the courts and the city councils, they're sticking it to the man with a vengeance.
Interesting.
Since my university years 30 yrs ago, I have been arguing with friends about this topic, and kept wondering if there could be a particular personality type that finds communism appealing or one that likes capitalism. Now I think I can simplify it down to a single sentence (annoying to some people) ---
Lazy people like communism and hardw ...[text shortened]... ve people like capitalism.
A gross generalisation, I know, but it still has some truth to it.