I'll repeat that Marx adopted many medieval Christian beliefs. This is no surprise. As a secularized assimilative (German) Jew who spent most of his adult life in England, taking up Christian ideas was part of his protective coloration. This is for another thread, but Marx, Freud, and other 19th century Jewish thinkers sought philosophies in which religious identity was unimportant. They may not even have been aware of this, but many scholars now believe it was a primary motive for them. Marx was also democratic in the sense that he believed the majority must ultimately rule society, which was a radical idea in the early 19th century. His instinct was to follow the majority and escape the pain of Jewish exceptionalism. That too pushed him toward primitive Christian beliefs. The anti-semitic peasantry of his day believed that any economic transactions much beyond barter were devilish and Jewish. Part of the anti-semitic mythology was that Jews were capitalists - the sort who bought stocks and bonds, ran banks, etc. - while good Christians tilled the soil and swapped potatoes for chickens. The Christian Fathers specifically denounced interest in any amount, and private property. This economic primitivism is still found among "progressives," i.e., regressives, and it appealed to Marx. It made him one of the (Christian) guys.

Dave, you totally misread me. (Don't know why you'd want to read my mind and attribute ugly motives to me, but I suppose it's easier to denounce motives of your own creation than to actually engage with another's ideas.) As an atheist, I'm utterly indifferent to "liberation theology" and similar Catholic isms. I'd never criticize something so unimportant to me.

My point was that Christianity's greatest appeal is to poor ignorant people. It gives them hope and dignity. I understand this appeal, but real prosperity and real knowledge beat these every time. I'm not talking about the Catholic Church - an institution. I'm talking about the faithful, the "flock." Don't forget that Rome has largely repudiated "liberation theology," so these views can't even be called truly Catholic. Besides, I've no special quarrel with Catholicism. I find all forms of Christianity equally noxious. Far be it from me to discriminate. Marx wrote long before trendy third-world priests even existed. His framework was the Christianity of the 18th and 19th centuries, and the medievalism to which it harked.

Here are a few samples:

The Third Council of the Lateran, in 1179, decreed that persons who accepted interest on loans could receive neither the sacraments nor Christian burial. This was interest of any kind, not excessive interest in the modern sense.

Pope Clement V made the belief in the right to interest a heresy in 1311, and abolished all secular legislation which allowed it.

Pope Sixtus V (circa 1590) condemned the practice of charging interest as "detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity."

John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) wrote "Let us imagine things as happening in this way: All give all that they have into a common fund. No one would have to concern himself about it, neither the rich nor the poor. How much money do you think would be collected? I infer—for it cannot be said with certainty—that if every individual contributed all his money, his lands, his estates, his houses (I will not speak of slaves, for the first Christians had none, probably giving them their freedom), then a million pounds of gold would be obtained, and most likely two or three times that amount. Then tell me how many people our city contains? How many Christians? Will it not come to a hundred thousand? And how many pagans and Jews! How many thousands of pounds of gold would be gathered in! And how many of the poor do we have? I doubt that there are more than 50,000. How much would be required to feed them daily? If they all ate at a common table, the cost could not be very great. What could we not undertake with our huge treasure! Do you believe it could ever be exhausted?

And will not the blessing of God pour down on us a thousand-fold richer? Will we not make a heaven on earth? Would not the grace of God be indeed richly poured out?"

Augustine (354-430 AD) wrote "That bread which you keep, belongs to the hungry; that coat which you preserve in your wardrobe, to the naked; those shoes which are rotting in your possession, to the shoeless; that gold which you have hidden in the ground, to the needy. Wherefore, as often as you were able to help others, and refused, so often did you do them wrong."

Ambrose (340-397 AD) wrote "The earth was made in common for all…. Why do you arrogate to yourselves, ye rich, exclusive right to the soil? Nature, which begets all poor, does not know the rich. For we are neither born with raiment nor are we begotten with gold and silver. Naked it brings people into the light, wanting food, clothing, and drink; naked the earth receives whom it has brought forth; it knows not how to include the boundaries of an estate in tomb…. Nature, therefore, knows not how to discriminate when we are born, it knows not how when we die…"

From these few references, the similarity between the beliefs of the early Christians, Marx, and today's "progressives" should be clear.

...

transward (imported) wrote: Sat May 15, 2010 11:34 pm And he was a really serious class warrior, too -- he wasn't just into helping the poor; he didn't seem to like rich folks very much. In Matthew 6, he focuses on the love of money as a major problem. In Luke 11, he berates a wealthy lawyer for burdening the poor. In Luke 12, he says that the wealthy who store up treasure are cursed by God. In Luke 14, he says if we throw a party, we should invite all poor people and no rich people, and suggests that the wealthy already turned down their invitation to God's feast, and that it is the poor who will get into heaven (a theme repeated multiple times). He says that the rich people will have a harder time getting to heaven than a camel trying to pass through the eye of a needle. He chases the wealthy bankers and merchants from the Temple.

I have never heard a conservative Christian quote any of these verses -- not once, and I have been in a lot of discussions with Christian conservatives, and heard a lot of their speeches and sermons. The one verse they always quote (and I mean always -- I have never talked to a conservative Christian about economics and not heard them quote this verse) is the one time in which Jesus says that "the poor will always be with us." The reason they love this quote so much is that they interpret that line to mean that in spite of everything else Jesus said about the poor, that since the poor will always be with us, we don't need to worry about trying to help them. Apparently since the poor will always be with us, we can go ahead and screw them. But Jesus making a prediction that there will always be oppressive societies doesn't mean he wanted us to join the oppressors. By clinging desperately to that one verse in the Bible, and ignoring all the others about the poor and the rich, Christian conservatives show themselves to be hypocrites, plain and simple.

The Jesus of the New Testament spent his public career preaching about the nature of God and our relationship to God, but also about how we should deal with each other. He repeatedly blessed mercy, gentleness, peacemaking, community, and taking care of each other. He lifted up the poor and oppressed, and spoke poorly of the wealthy and powerful. If anyone in modern society talked like he did, you can bet your bottom dollar that conservatives would condemn that person as a class warrior, a socialist.

...

Transward

I quoted the opening post just to get back on track here...

I think Marx twisted Jesus into atheistic nonsense called communism. I think Marx hated religion and attempted to create a godless world adn failed. Atheism has more in league with Marx and Engels treatise on communism than anything the organized Christian church did.

And again we are down to the question -- can conservatives be compassionate? And I see a mixed answer.

Dave (imported) wrote: Wed May 19, 2010 2:09 am can conservatives be compassionate?

I think most are, the problem is that most only show it if you are willing or do believe as they do. Its like charity, both Democrats and Republicans give to charity but the difference is the Democrat give because its right not because they are looking for a deduction on there taxes, the Republican gives but make sure you deduct it from your taxes. It was this realization that helped me change from the Republican party to the Democrat party, one of many such changes.

So yes Dave conservatives be compassionate, but it comes with conditions, I have only met a few people in my life that compassion was given out of hand, our friend Sag is one of those people, a diamond among the chunks of coal.

River

Twinsenboy (imported) wrote: Tue May 18, 2010 12:30 pm http://www.essene.com/GospelOfPeace/peace1.html

In other words.. absolutely, seeing as how Jesus was talking about the Sun and stars as

the biggest atoms/nucleus and the Earth as an enormous electron.. and the connection/dependence between them is the Love that we ARE, as he's saying the Heavenly Father - Earthly Mother prayer=)

Eh ??????

Transward

I would like to thank those who contributed to this thread. I began it with some trepidation. Too often lately, whatever the topic of any thread, it soon descends into politics and then into name calling. But I also have occasional impulses to poke sticks into hornet nests, literally and figuratively. This topic has the potential to generate more heat than light. I am pleasantly surprised at the quality of the responses. Most are well reasoned, and well expressed. Good work folks.

Transward

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Tue May 18, 2010 10:14 pm I'll repeat that Marx adopted many medieval Christian beliefs. This is no surprise. As a secularized assimilative (German) Jew who spent most of his adult life in England, taking up Christian ideas was part of his protective coloration.

Marx didn't adopt mediaeval Chistian beliefs; he parallels them. The mediaeval (and patristic) Christians lived in an era before the rise of the industrial economy; therefore, they don't deal with it. Marx lived after the advent of the industrial economy, but because he was an economic nitwit, he didn't understand and came up with a non-managerial, non-entrepreneurial economics. And he certainly didn't take up Christian ideas as protective coloration. If he had, he, like Disraeli, would have actually become a church-goer; Marx contemptuously dismissed religion (the famous opiate of the people remark --though you must remember that laudanum/opium was an over-the-counter remedy in his day, so that was rather more like the Pepto-Bismol of the people and not the crystal-meth of the people). He flagrantly demonstrated his contempt for both his ancestral religion (the family had converted before his birth so he had no say in the matter) and the establishment religion; running naked isn't wrapping oneself up in protective coloration. And nineteenth-century atheists were in no great danger in the Vaterland or in the UK, except of course being denied the right to serve on juries, so Marx would have no call to adopt Christian or patristic views. Marx is basically a Romantic with a Wordsworthian sentimentality for laborers (and the same pseudo-aristocratic avoidance of actual work; the one economic truth Marx was experienced in was exploiting the labor of the masses; he didn't work and sponged off of Engels' Grandfather's stock portfolio); like most Romantics, his views are built on the anticlericism of the Enlightenment, so like Voltaire (and Browning eg Soliloquy in a Spanish Cloister, The Bishop Orders his Tomb) he mocks religion.

A Christian Nation? Better read this,,, (http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/founding-f ... anity.html)

Our Founding Fathers on Christianity

Anyone who tells you that the Founding Fathers were trying to create a Christian nation is either a liar or parroting what other liars told him. This is what they really had to say about Christianity.

The Faith of our Founding Fathers

By Dean Worbis

No one disputes the faith of our Founding Fathers. To speak of unalienable

Rights being endowed by a Creator certainly shows a sensitivity to our

spiritual selves. What is suprising is when fundamentalist Christians think

the Founding Father's faith had anything to do with the Bible. Without

exception, the faith of our Funding Fathers was deist, not theist. It was

best expressed earlier in the Declaration of Independence, when they spoke

of "the Laws of Nature" and of "Nature's God."

In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said, "Among

all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of

religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."

The Bible? Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based

Christianity

Thomas Jefferson

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find

in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They

are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,

women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been

burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this

coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to

support roguery and error all over the earth."

SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS

By John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

Jefferson again

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on

man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the

teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the

first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus."

More Jefferson

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for

enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a

contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy in fact,

constitute the real Anti-Christ."

Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."

John Adams

"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines

and Oaths, and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion

encumbered with in these days?"

Also Adams

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for

absurdity."

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the

Christian religion."

Here's Thomas Paine

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to

that book (the Bible)."

"Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse

than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to

massacre the mothers, and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not

dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book

(the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Diest to vindicate the moral justice of God

against the evils of the Bible."

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and

you will have sins in abundance."

And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in

pretend imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

Finally let's hear from James Madison

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on

civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of

political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of

the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty

have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government,

instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the

exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote "Religion and government will

both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

These Founding Fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having

escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the

people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of

Independence was signed.

Among those who confuse Christianity with the founding of America, the rise

of conservative Baptists is one of the more interesting developments. The

Baptists believed God's authority came from the people, not the priesthood,

and they had been persecuted for this belief. It was they - the Baptists -

who were instrumental in securing the separation of church and state. They

knew you can not have a "one-way-wall" that lets religion into government

but that does not let it out. They knew no religion is capable of handling

political power without becoming corrupted by it. And, perhaps, they knew it

was Christ himself who first proposed the separation of church and state;

"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the

Lord's."

In the last five years the Baptists have been taken over by a fundamentalist

faction that insists authority comes from the Bible and that the individual

must accept the interpretation of the Bible from a higher authority. These

usurpers of the Baptist faith are those who insist they should meddle in the

affairs of the government and it is they who insist the government should

meddle in the beliefs of individuals.

References The writings of Thomas Jefferson exist in 25 volumes.

The references for this article were found in the book, SIX HISTORIC

AMERICANS, by John E. Remsburg (who interviewed many of Lincoln's

associates). Much of his work on Jefferson came from THE MEMOIRS,

CORRESPONDENCE AND MISCELLANIES FROM THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, 4

volumes ed. by Thomas Jefferson Randolph (the grandson of Thomas Jefferson).

WWJD What Would Jefferson Do?

April 13, 2000 marks Thomas Jefferson's 257th birthday. In honor of this

occasion, Americans United has pulled together some of Jefferson's best

statements on church and state. Jefferson, along with James Madison, was a

key architect of the religious liberty guarantees we enjoy today. What better

way to honor the memory of this visionary founder than spending a few moments

reading and reflecting on his timeless wisdom? With issues such as voucher

aid to religious schools and government-sponsored prayer in public schools

pending in Congress and the state legislatures, Jefferson's comments are

just as relevant today as they were then.

Religious Right activists claim the framers never intended to

separate church and state. Christian Coalition president Pat Robertson

says separation is a "lie of the left." TV preacher Jerry Falwell calls it

"a modern fabrication."

Here are Jefferson's own words on the subject.

Separation of Church and State

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely

between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith

or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions

only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of

the whole American people which declared that their legislature should

'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church

and State."

--Letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, January 1, 1802

Taxation for Religion

"[T]o compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the

propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;

that even the forcing of him to support this or that teacher of his own

religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of

giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would

make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to

righteousness....Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no

man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place

or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or

burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of

his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to

profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion,

and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their

civil capacities."

--Excerpts from Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786

Government-Sponsored Prayer and Other Religious Worship

"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the

civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its

doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government

should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or

matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the

enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right

to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects

proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and the right

can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has

deposited it."

--Letter to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808

One quote the writer forgot to include: "I have sworn an oath on the altar of God of eternal hostility to tyranny" from Tom Jefferson.

I suggest as an exercise for the reader, look up that quote in context..

A.Lizard

A-1 (imported) wrote: Thu May 20, 2010 8:32 pm A Christian Nation? Better read this,,, (http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/founding-f ... anity.html)

Again a confusion between the deism of the founding fathers

reinterpreted into Christianity.

Moi agrees with schools, baseball games, the anthem recognizing a deity without specification/definition as the founding fathers.

Moi

Deist, - - - not by choice, I was drafted

The Constitution allows people to take office after oath or affirmation. Religion not required.

The Declaration of Independence says our rights come from God, but not any particular God. Christianity not required.

Fair to say we were founded as a religious nation - religion being near universal in the 18th century - but not a Christian nation.

....

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri May 21, 2010 3:12 pm Fair to say we were founded as a religious nation - religion being near universal in the 18th century - but not a Christian nation.

Still pretty close to universal today. Particularily, since every American feels the obligation to have an opinion on every topic. Few have the restraint to remain devoutly agnostic in the face of the question of the existance of God (or god, if you prefer) Atheism, as much as Christianity or Islam demands a statement of faith about the unknowable. Three thousand years of trying have pretty much showed that neither the existence nor the non existence of God is subject of proof.

Transward