Philosophy Now Forum

Christian Communism @ wiki

This might be a good starting point for you.

The examples of practicing communities, both presently and historically, are few and far between.

I will cite Jesus and his disciples as the earliest recorded example.

As a side note, the existence of people practising a political philosophy has no bearing on whether or not it is valid.

Further, you seem to be implying that we can make an inference of the form 'a society has x feature and produces y results, therefore x causes y', is this a fair summation of your thinking?

I will reiterate the rebuttal of your prior points.



Here your reasoning is that a person may legitimately be criticised for holding a belief which is given a certain term if there is at some other time and place another person who proclaims the same term to be applicable to themselves who also commits some abhorrent act.

That is, you think that all people to whom a term applies are responsible for all acts committed by all the other people to whom that terms applies.

Except that this is not your belief, as you have singled out socialists and communists specifically, and while you say that you "won't shy away from" various horrendous acts committed in the name of your own belief system, what does this "not shying away from" actually consist of?

Presumably you are chiding communists and socialists for holding their beliefs, and hence believe that they should disavow them, and so it follows that if you are "not shying away from" the acts committed in the name of your own belief system that you too will do the good deed and disavow your own beliefs.

That is, unless, your phrase of "not shying away from" is a relatively meaningless acknowledgement that the events occured, were done in the name of Christianity, and thats about all there is to it. In which case I would point out that those who fail to acknowledge the occurence of the horrific events enacted in the name of Communism are a rare breed, rightly deserving of any criticism that comes their way.



To argue that someone who supposedly adheres to a belief system has acted in a way that is contrary to that belief system, and therefore doesn't qualify for inclusion amongst that belief system's adherents is not an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, though it does bear a superficial resemblance. One thing to remember about fallacies is that their applicability requires some rigour, not the mere appearance of similar form. In the fallacy the universal statements are made about Scotsmen and fallaciously defended in the face of counter-examples by redefining Scotsmen ad nauseum to exclude the counter-examples. I am not sure if I would term this a fallacy in the strictest sense, as in most other examples in philosophy it is legitimate to redefine the starting terms as part of the natural development and refinement of a point in the face of criticism. The reason that it is disingenuous is that to redefine the term 'Scotsman' in such a way denatures it entirely from the original point being made; the supposed virtuosity of Scotsmen1 (those of Scots descent) is not supported by the actual virtuosity of Scotsmen2 (those of Scots descent that are virtuous).

Were we to define a pacifist (as it often is defined) as a person who does not engage in intentional acts of violence then it would be sound to claim that "no pacifisit intentionally engages in acts of violence" and even to defend it, should someone provide a counter-example, with the retort that the person from the example is "no true pacifist".

With more nebulously defined concepts such as 'Muslim' or 'Christian' it is fair to say that there is no singular definition, and that when two people say "I am a Muslim/Christian" they can mean quite different things, and that the two statements should not be taken as making the same assertion when uttered from different mouths. There are plenty of Christians who would deny the legitimacy of others to proclaim themselves as Christians due to various beliefs that they hold, and likewise amongst Muslims you would probably be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't exclude some self-proclaimed Muslims from that category. Quite which grounds constitute such an exclusion vary, but there are certainly those who would say that suicide bombing is against Islam and the Koran much as there are those who would exclude them for not providing support to suicide bombers.

It is for these reasons that it is generally best to be clear about the subdivisions of belief or, where possible, expound clearly the particular beliefs of the adherent as it is quite disingenuous to conflate two disparate belief systems, their notions and their consequences, purely on the basis of terminological convenience.

As for your free will thread, I have not seen it. Link?

Don't be so hopeful!

Do you mean the early church after Jesus's resurrection? Don't confuse working together as socialism. Many enterprises are begun when each person mortgages their home and sells everything for the dream.

If you mean Jesus and his disciples walking the land? They earned their keep. Most of them, to my knowledge all had professional working backgrounds before Jesus asked them to follow him.

Of course not and yet practically speaking ... one is sometimes forced to draw those conclusions.

I hope not!

Au contraire. I don't expect them to disavow their beliefs that is why they are my enemies. One should know what their set of beliefs allows them to justify!

Hence the thread!!

So true. Let's see how this potential application of the fallacy works out.

I get your point but there is also to be considered that a Muslim follows the 5 pillars of Islam and that a Christian must believe in the trinity and saving grace of Jesus. I am comfortable to call people that then add to that core Christians. Muslims and Christians are very definable and it is often that a person wishes to be called a Muslim or Christian when they simply are not. I cannot be called a doctor simply because I can apply a dressing.

Yes but then I doubt we would get anywhere in the discussion either. I have little doubt that if we read the paper tomorrow and a Christian killed a bus load of people that you would be totally upset if I said that they were prima facie not Christian by this act.

Actually it is your thread. I was referred to it by 'i blame blame'.

Your thread: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=408
Another thread with the post viewtopic.php?p=42637#p42637

Hi Wootah,

Maybe the title of this thread should be "Do Christians Weep". How can you believe in the man made idea of God existing for the soul purpose to justify certain man made and natural disasters? Doesn't it make you stop and wonder why God has been defeated time and time again in his evil plot to destroy evil? Don't you even question why God never seems to win his battles? Could it be that the God you are imagining is just another one of man's evil inventions? Don't you think God should be a teensy weensy above the pettiness of man? Jesus was a socialist. And there is no doubt that he wept.

A Communist is, broadly speaking, a person who believes that the redistribution of wealth such as to end the exploitation of a labouring class by a capital-owning class would be a 'good thing'. After this single principle all else is up for grabs.

Ideologically speaking all Doctors have more in common with one another than all Communists (having vowed the Hippocratic Oath or some variation thereof).

And yet for some reason when people point to the actions of Che Guevara it is his Communism that they blame for any of his excesses, and not his being a Doctor.



I am sure that bombing buses is perfectly acceptable within your understanding of Christianity, and so I would have no problem associating the two of you and expressing concern at what you may do

I know for a fact that those who bomb innocents in the name of Christianity are of a belief system far removed from the aforementioned nun, however. As I said, I would be a cruel and pitiful monster if I were to harp at this blameless woman who has devoted her life to helping those in need for her association with a term (christian) which some people apply to both her and others.

My personal understanding of Christianity is that such an act is most certainly in contravention of its principles. I understand, though, that many people do act in contravention of principles which they hold. I would be happy to say that insofar as they believe such violence to be justified they are not Christian. I might even go so far as to say that even if they knew all about Christian metaphysics and the trinity, if they don't get the important message of non-violence then they are quite clearly not a Christian.

It is easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. -Chinese Fortune Cookie.

My take on communism is that there is no private property as it is the property of the people. Socialism is when everyone is in agreement and do or say the same things. Welfare state is getting free stuff from government. I fear this last is what draws people to the first two. It always appears to me that these type of states are owned by one man. Also, it appears, forms for federal aid were too difficult to correctly complete, and so, most of the rebuilding after Katrina was privately funded. Who is the main source of all these little rules and regulations with the federal register, NARA (national association of records and archives) or whatever)). It was not the republicans. What gave the Judiciary Branch an inordinate amount of power, being chosen over Congress and State Legislature, to oversee the as yet not ratified Equal Rights Amendment? Who are now complaining about the Associates within our highest Court? What a fine devoir to see democrats suffering conceptual antagonism over the current body within the Judicial Branch.

That goes without saying that Christians weep, we have much to be ashamed of.


If Jesus is willing to die on the cross rather than destroy evil through violence it testifies, to me at least, far more greatly how God wants us to defeat evil: Follow Jesus, stay away from what hurts us and leave justice to God.

That would and should be in the back of every Christian's mind. Do you doubt that?

WWJD - Become a socialist ... lol.

Finally getting somewhere.

So you expect me (a lot like your nun) to believe that you are rational when you would regard yourself as a cruel and pitiful monster for talking to me about why I'm wrong? I like you and won't allow you to label yourself that way and I am sure your nun would agree!!


OK. I've never encountered someone so prepared to defend the system. America isn't an evil empire it was those soldiers that killed people in Vietnam. None of which were Americans. Same with Nazi's, Nazi's didn't authorise genocide it was people that were not Nazi's that did it. It's a load of crap and you, should, know it.

Heck for all I know we could take your argument to ridicule and start arguing that people that follow the instructions of any particular ideology to the letter are therefore so free willed that we should not label them as followers of said ideology.

I think we can and must look at each ideology; understand what it contains and what that entails and understand within that framework how the members of that ideology are justifying their behaviour.

Enjoy.

I really hate saying this, but maybe the readers will simply see it as an opinion concerning the state of current humanity. I really don't possess a strong negative view, and in fact believe a very highly evolved impersonal, unselfish, underlying love resides within most, if not all of us. There are simply layers of this or that form of selfishness, and ignorance, to a more or less degree, covering this love like layers of an onion.

Capitalism, and a Constitution based federal Republic are more pragmatic. Honest as well. A lot of selfish greed is alive and well within humanity. Cupidity, or greed, is often set aside toward statesmen like focus. Nutopia, utopia, is well, hmm... how do I say? Sort of pretentious, maybe? Am I to believe there are these few who have approached a level approximating perfection, and that I should simply precisely follow their thought? And further, believing they are in good conscience, doing only what is described as the highest level of thought, and altuistic perfection, I know they'd never give us a break. In good conscience, they would show us all, new levels of lacking, never before experienced by many. Even when they detained so many in barbed-wire camps, and weakness from hunger or illness, pointed toward euthanasia, they would humanely consign many to mass crematorium. Isn't that sublime exaltedness? And coming from people who do not even know what occurs after death of the physical body. I would rather have rich greedy grumps, who often leave greed aside to do something for others, especially if a lot of checks and balances exist. Socialism doesn't require checks and balances, after all, we all possess agreement, like they do with Chavez, Castro, the late great Stalin. Right? You know why socialism works in Sweden? The people "do" have a strong voice, and they practice it regularly. America is too big. We would first require a division into regional city-states that possess their own sovereignty to whatever level is necessary.

I also appreciate the vile use of picking on Christians when the real focus is another religion they are afraid to pick on. Who cares what Christians did hundreds of years ago, when another religion is doing it right this very moment? If you are scared, simply say your scared. Picking on Christians for some uncommon act of random violence, when another religion is eclipsing this beyond easy ability to measure, is saying you are OK with the violence they engage upon. Sorry, I failed to follow Obama's socialistic political correctness within this post. I will not do it again. This is it. Anything else I post here will not contain this kind of base, unsugar-coated verbum.

I did watch the video's you gave link to, wootah. There was actually a lot of content I wasn't already aware of. Cool.

So there are no circumstances in which you would think it justified for a christian to bomb a bus full of people, not even during wartime?



You certainly could ridicule the argument, as any sound argument can and will be ridiculed via misapplication by those who do not understand it.

I agree that the purpose of political philosophy should be to examine what different ideologies entail, and that is precisely what I have done. Political belief is significantly more nuanced than broadsweeping categorisations, and conflating the variety of views encompassed by the terms socialist and communist is a blunt tool akin to conflating the variety of views encompassed by the term european.

Do you deny that there is greater complexity to political theory than just communism vs capitalism?

Maybe you could offer an example of what you mean?


I equate punishment with bullying so I guess we’ll just have to differ on this.


No, I think that if you try to impose this sort of limitation upon another you are already perpetuating the system – just with a new wrinkle.

What I think is that if people can understand that the system of rich man, poor man is a biologically evolved process of parasitism then individuals can become immune to being parasitized or exploited.


Maybe but I think it more likely to be a sense of humour failure by one of us.


Only partially. I think the expensive schools encourage a sense of entitlement and the tools for exploiting others. So rather than being sheep they teach children to be wolves. True individuals would be taught to be humans, basing their actions upon rationality rather than instinct.


Once again I think we will have to agree to differ on this.


Not really.


The ones that own about half of everything. What other sort of rich is there?


Odd. Your being an artist gives you a lot of experience in human behaviour whereas me just running construction sites makes me naive?


Oh I see – I should read more fairy tales!


You think typing is more intimate than speaking?


These things aren’t you – they are things that happen to you.


There you are then, we have choice.


At the top of this post I was idealistic; in the middle I was naïve; now you think I’m seeking totalitarian world domination?


I think this is where we started:



Only now we know why it is you are unlikely to understand


What has this got to do with thinking for oneself?


Of course I want them to be members of society – that was not what we were arguing about. You keep saying we have to follow the herd – I think we have to think for ourselves.

I find the notion that people have compared all those on the right wing to nazis somewhat perplexing. My only encounters with this sort of argumentation have been inveterate and puerile retards. The argument simply does not hold water.

Having recognised the stupidity of this form of argumentation why do Glenn Beck and his admirers insist on emulating it?

There is a saying that goes do not wrestle with pigs, you will both get dirty but the pig will enjoy it.

When people like Glenn Beck so gleefully engage with their equally childish equivalents on the other side of the spectrum I cannot help but feel that both sides get the pig-like enjoyment of their own self-degradation, leaving the rational people from both camps shaking their heads and sighing.

[/quote]

S: Maybe you could offer an example of what you mean?

AS: A perfect example of what I mean is what is possible at the time. I remember seeing a monologue once in Williamsburg, VA. It was a speech by and actor playing Patrick Henry. In the speech Henry was talking about how it was imperative that they break free from England. He was also talking about the other wrongs that were going on during the time, one of which was slavery. His main point was that they needed to focus all of their attention on breaking free from England in order that they could then free the slaves. However, in the mean time, he felt that certain laws must be put in place to protect slaves from being exploited by slave masters (including Patrick Henry himself.) He knew there was no use starting a civil war when they had bigger problems which was they had no say in their own lives. It was more logical and practical to focus on one fight at a time. So, in the interim, Patrick Henry suggested that they should put in place a law that stated that owners of slaves could not abandon their slaves at the end of their lives when they no longer were able to serve because of old age. He demanded that if you owned a slave you would have to take care of them until the day they died. He argued it was cruel to allow them to be put out to pasture to die from the elements because they could no longer be of service. He knew it would have done no good to focus attention on one good cause without first securing the ability to be free. What good would it have done to free the slaves when you yourself were not free? It's sort of like on a plane when they tell you to secure your own oxygen and then help your child. Isn't it logical to use strategy to win fights? What good does chaos do? Better to be clear headed and systematically prioritize your fights than to fight willy nilly and risk losing them all.

S:I equate punishment with bullying so I guess we’ll just have to differ on this.

AS: So are you bullying the rich person by punishing him? Do you bully your children? Are you trying to tell me you never punish anyone or are you simply saying you don't use the word "punishment" when you do. Semantics.

S:True individuals would be taught to be humans, basing their actions upon rationality rather than instinct.

AS: And yet the reality is, we are not only rational beings we also use instinct in order to survive. Is it not instinctual to want your children to have a better life? If you start out poor, do you want your children to be more poor than you? If you are unhealthy, do you want your children to be more unhealthy? I don't think many people would wish this on their kids....poor or rich. We want our kids to have a better life than we did no matter what our station in life. Isn't it all relative? To use a term from Einstein...lol. Thank for posting that book btw. I have been enjoying it a little each day. I can see patterns in it that correlates well with socialism and human behavior, can you?


S:Odd. Your being an artist gives you a lot of experience in human behaviour whereas me just running construction sites makes me naive?

AS: No. You are missing my point. Our careers have nothing to do with it. This is about our aptitude. I am better at some things than you are and visa versa.

S:Oh I see – I should read more fairy tales!

AS: No, you should keep an open mind that someone may be able to spot the moral better than you could. Don't be so quick to think you are above my intellect. What Einstein did with math I do with fairy tales...lol. If this is useless to you then you should not be trying to construct a economical or social system, because you have no clue of what you are talking about until you can actually break down human behavioral patterns in a logical way. You know how Einstein thought about light and time from something as simple as thinking about lightening hitting 2 poles while from different viewpoints the action would be seen in a relative manner? Well, it is the same thing when looking at fairy tale books or art or anything you don't see as worth of your time. If you only want to stay within the confines of what you are comfortable with...then you will not be able to look at your theories with a critical eye.


S:You think typing is more intimate than speaking?

AS: In many ways yes. When you speak to someone in person you are vulnerable. You are vulnerable because they have the ability to reject you based on outside influences that have nothing to do with your own code of ethics, intelligence, kindness, etc. Often they will only hear you on the surface. If you are pretty...they will hear you in a favorable light. If you are ugly they will hear you in a negative light. This is not rational. This is why you see so many relationships fail, because if you are fooled into believe someone is good because of the way they look, you are being fooled. In art we have a name for this, Trompe l'oeil. It means art that deceives the eye. Better to read, and re read a persons words on paper...without being fooled by a visual. I will go one further...better to scrutinize what they say on paper in every possible way in order to get to the truth of the matter. Which is why you have trouble understanding the importance of fairy tales and deciphering underlying and hidden truths that are of the utmost importance when setting up an economical and social system that will actually work.

S:These things aren’t you – they are things that happen to you.

AS: The things that happen to you shape who you are they are your life.

S:You keep saying we have to follow the herd – I think we have to think for ourselves.

AS: I don't keep saying that we HAVE to follow the herd. I am saying that we DO follow the herd. Whether we like it or not. I think you believe everyone else follows the herd except you....which in and of itself is a herd like mentality condition! You don't see this? Let me explain it this way. Most people think they think for themselves. Not many think, "I am following the herd! Yippe!" And yet we all think that it's the other people follow the herd, not us. If you look to left and right and see a whole bunch of herd followers...what do you think the chances are you are in the middle of the herd?

I was hoping you would give an example of where you thought I was not picking my battles.


When do you think rich people get punished?

I’ve already said that I do punish my children. I do consider this a form of bullying, after all it is based upon a total inequality of power. I try to only punish in reciprocation for them doing something antisocial because to punish them because they refuse to do what I ask encourages them to use force / be a bully to get their own way in turn.


Have you ever heard of something called global warming? Its tentative estimate is that if everyone lives like the average American then 90% of the human race needs to die for as to have any long term future. Being a European I only need half of the world population to die to maintain my lifestyle.


So you think you have a better theory of ethics than I do?


My approach is to try to figure out what moral means before trying to spot it. How do you know you are better at this?


And you said you weren’t going to waste your time trying to read it. Would you consider me idealistic to be disappointed that you should find it so difficult to be straight with me?


How you act either in reaction to what happens to you or despite what happens to you is your life.


The distinction escapes me.

S:I was hoping you would give an example of where you thought I was not picking my battles.

AS: I think you do not take into consideration that human behavior is a constant and not likely to change all that much. I think you allow yourself to stand firm on your principles while ignoring other peoples principals. I think you don't understand that you are exactly like the the rich person you resent. The only difference is the relative wealth involved. You squawk about wanting to redistribute their wealth but not your own. You can't win a fight like that. You can't start by saying lets free the slaves without first freeing yourself.

S:When do you think rich people get punished?

AS: When they lose their wealth.

S:I’ve already said that I do punish my children. I do consider this a form of bullying, after all it is based upon a total inequality of power. I try to only punish in reciprocation for them doing something antisocial because to punish them because they refuse to do what I ask encourages them to use force / be a bully to get their own way in turn.

AS: Semantics.

S:So you think you have a better theory of ethics than I do?

AS: No, I think you don't take the time to get off your high horse to consider anyone's opinion who may have a unique way of looking at things that does not fit into your little box. Some day someone of much more prestige will come along and say the same exact thing I am saying to you now and you will listen. Because you will respect their opinion and wish to impress them. I have seen this time and time again. If it happens when I am here to witness it, I will provide you with proof. In the mean time...you will continue to read half of what I write and interpret my words foolishly.

S:My approach is to try to figure out what moral means before trying to spot it. How do you know you are better at this?

AS: Because you are looking for a black and white answer. You are not considering that it is all relative, just like Einsteins theory. You can't just read what is on the surface of a fairy tale and come up with all it's subtle and intricate meanings. It is simply not possible. Until you can read a fairy tale and analyze it as if it were a physics problem then you are not grasping meaning in its entirety. You are only understanding a very shallow layer.

S:And you said you weren’t going to waste your time trying to read it. Would you consider me idealistic to be disappointed that you should find it so difficult to be straight with me?

AS: I never said I wasn't going to read it. I said I wasn't going to waste my time trying to become a physicist when I have a more desirable career that I have more aptitude for that I wish to attend to. Do you actually believe that all someone has to do to be a physicist is to read this one book you recommend and VOILA! they are a physicist?! Well call MIT and inform them they will have a new professor one the way as soon as I finish this book! How long do you think it will be before I get tenure?!

See...this is exactly what I mean. You read the surface words...you don't truly understand a thing I am saying. And you want me to trust that you know ethics and morality without questioning your applications or understanding?

S:The distinction escapes me.

AS:Here is the distinction...We can see herd followers when they are following a herd that we don't agree with or don't understand. We can choose not to be of this particular herd. However, we will choose another herd that we do agree with. It may be conscious or subconscious but either way...we are still following a herd. We can't escape it no matter how hard we try. What is going to make another herd want to follow you? You think they are going to want to follow you to the poor house? Do you think a wealthy nation will just hand over the money, no questions asked? NO....they are going to ask, "what's in it for me?" And if you tell them...."well, we will all live in poverty and share all the land... you won't be able to live on the land unless you have enough money to rent it...but it's all good...because we will all be poor together except for the few who will be able to rent the mansions..no worries though...because the jokes on them...they won't actually own anything!" Your principles are shallow because they still don't help as many people as capitalism does....and I am not even all that much of a capitalist. Look at your plan from all angles...like Einstein....work out the kinks...like Einstein....allow it to be scrutinized by your peers...like Einstein. Then you might have a chance to convince a nation.

It would be logical if I were having a fight – but I’m not – I’m having a discussion with you. Who do you think I am, or should be, fighting against?


I find this a strange accusation. My ideas about ethics include a proposal of where human behaviour comes from as well as saying what I think it is.

What is this constant of human behaviour you think I am not considering?


Which principles do you think I am ignoring? And why do you think I have to take other people’s principles into account?


I don’t agree that I resent the rich but I do think that parasitism weakens the host and I think this is dangerous.


Do I? Can you quote where I said this? Are you sure you understood what I meant?


Freeing myself from what or whom?


Happens a lot in your part of the world does it?


I didn’t realise the word semantics meant: disagreeing with artisticsolutions and her not liking it.


You’re definitely riled up about something and it would appear to be something about not getting through to me.

As far as I can see you seem annoyed that I won’t accept your ideas and agree with you and yet at the same time you have said “We are talking about your ideas.”


This seems a sad assessment. I’m still listening – what is it you are trying to say?


Wrong and wrong again. What is it you think my ideas are?


So stop doing this to me! If you really are trying to talk to me about my ideas then maybe you should stop telling me why I am wrong all the time and actually try to get an idea of what I am getting at, look below the surface etc before passing judgement.