How the specter of syncretism is being used to islamize the faith

[Deleted member]

There's a reasonable possibility to draw conclusions about. He may have matured in the direction of realizing the limitations of only being able to copy already-published work.

Sure, Marx was copying. The reason he invented Communism was he wasn't happy with his own skills and inspirations. That's exactly what it is about Communism. A poor dramatist wished he was better so he invented a system to keep spiritual barriers low so he could cheat and copy.

What you said is 100% compatible with designing a system which used pretexts to deprive the people of religion. Then, he could hope to form rapports of sin with people whose inspiration or intelligence he coveted. He could even hope to make himself personally powerful by seeing it implemented even though it didn't happen in his lifetime except on a small scale such as the Paris Commune and only in the first step away from Capitalism.

That is related to the point of the thread. Subversive elements may be trying to destroy prayer and the faith because they'd like to have what you have.

Please, consider that making arguments without proper backing is not fully honest. For example: "the reason he invented communism was that he was not happy with his own skills and inspirations"- how can you know what Marx felt? it is difficult to know even for people close to us.
Realizing why it is not honest behavior may not be easily apparent, it is not the focus of the thread, but it is a concern within the spirit of a Catholic forum.

Have you read a good biography on the man? A serious historian would read Marx's books his correspondence with close people, would look at school reports, letter from his university professors.
You seem interested on the topic- here is one example:
Karl Marx: A Biography by David McLellan is the standard university text. It's quite good, easy to digest, and comprehensive.

Karl Marx His Life And Thought : David McLellan : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

1 TRIER, BONN AND BERLINI Childhood 1 II Student Days 16 ill Journalism 40 2 PARISI Marriage and Hegel 62 II The Deutsch-franwsische...

archive.org

As Christians, we are exhorted to treat people properly, that includes not making judgements about them. You do not like Marx's ideas, that is no reason to launch a personal attack on him. I hope it is not something you frequently do with people in your life.

Statements with no base are irresponsible. As a society, we do very badly if people make decisions that have important effects on their lives and the lives of others without seeking proper knowledge or being accountable for their words and actions. That is terrifying- real harm can come out of it.

Please do not present me again with a statement that is not properly researched, and when you do, please include your source.

 

[vz71]

The system teaches people to regard the means of production as their right.

That would be a question of morality, not of spirituality.

It teaches that coveting their neighbors' goods is their right.

Again, morality. Not spirituality.

Does sin and spirituality go away if you never mention it in your official source documents?

I understand you wish the absence of a position to be a position.
But, in this case, it simply is not.
Marxism is atheistic in nature. It has nothing to do with spirituality.

 

[Deleted member]

That would be a question of morality, not of spirituality.

Again, morality. Not spirituality.

I understand you wish the absence of a position to be a position.
But, in this case, it simply is not.
Marxism is atheistic in nature. It has nothing to do with spirituality.

Adding to the argument: No big theory has ever been developed by just one person- ideas from previous thinkers are further developed. Marx was no exception- the modern concept of communism was first coined with the French Revolution, and Marx developed it into a criticism of industrial capitalism. Similarly, his views on religion and spirituality were strongly influenced by Ludwig Feuerbach, Hegel's philosophy student. To fully understand Marx's writing, it is necessary to read Feuerbach as well. In particular, "The essence of Christianity"

The Essence of Christianity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Marx's most famous writing on religion/spirituality is this introduction to "A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right", which includes the famous quote- "Religion is the opium of the people". It also includes: "The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion."

​

Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right 1844

 

[Dissenter]

That would be a question of morality, not of spirituality.

Again, morality. Not spirituality.

Would you say it's spiritually healthy to feel you are owed when you are not? Would you say a person can't covet spiritual communion with intelligence or ability so they could achieve their covets in life? Would you say being told you are entitled to the goods of the rich can't awaken covetousness?

I understand you wish the absence of a position to be a position.
But, in this case, it simply is not.
Marxism is atheistic in nature. It has nothing to do with spirituality.

No, it actively subverts and persecutes religion. Suppressing the light of God is enough to live in a continual state of sin.

The point, despite the quasi-academic smokescreen you possible closet Marxists are throwing up, is so religion could not serve as a protection against the spirituality of being taught your abler neighbors must help you through the very rapport you create by burning with envy and hatred for their abilities.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

the spirituality of being taught your abler neighbors must help you through the very rapport you create by burning with envy and hatred for their abilities.

This is actually a very interesting and original take on the concept of the haves and the have-nots. Good observation.

 

[vz71]

You will forgive the delay in replying back. The replies here are over two months old, and I had to re-read the thread to get the context.

Would you say it's spiritually healthy to feel you are owed when you are not?

I would say it is not healthy, period.

Would you say a person can't covet spiritual communion with intelligence or ability so they could achieve their covets in life?

You may need to rephrase this question. I have no idea what you are asking.

Would you say being told you are entitled to the goods of the rich can't awaken covetousness?

I would consider that a form of incitement to class warfare. Not healthy.

No, it actively subverts and persecutes religion. Suppressing the light of God is enough to live in a continual state of sin.

OK, I am not certain this point says anything different then my initial position towards Marxism.

The point, despite the quasi-academic smokescreen you possible closet Marxists are throwing up,...

"possible closet Marxist"?
I have been accused of being many things in my life. This is new.
I would have to ask, what exactly is your definition of Marxism. If I am to be considered a possible closet Marxist, the definition here should be clarified.

...is so religion could not serve as a protection against the spirituality of being taught your abler neighbors must help you through the very rapport you create by burning with envy and hatred for their abilities.

I do not believe Marxism has any designs towards spirituality at all. It is Atheistic in nature, materialist as well.

I guess the big takeaway here is that you may not be operating with the same definition of Marxism that I do.
It wouldn't hurt to post a definition so we can further the discussion in a meaningful way.

 

[Dissenter]

I do not believe Marxism has any designs towards spirituality at all. It is Atheistic in nature, materialist as well.

Persecuting, taming, or controlling spirituality is a design.

 

[vz71]

Persecuting, taming, or controlling spirituality is a design.

Unless you wish to claim the destruction of spirituality is, in fact, a spiritual quality.

I am not so certain it is the case.

Still, you have a valid point. And you do seem insistent that you be right.

So congratulations. You're right!

Of course, that is a very qualified justification. Marxism is atheistic in nature. It is not a type of spirituality at all.
Seeking the destruction of spirituality does not actually make Marxism spiritual.

 

[Anobsitar]

... Marx's most famous writing on religion/spirituality is this introduction to "A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right", which includes the famous quote- "Religion is the opium of the people". It also includes: "The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion." ...

„Das Fundament der irreligiösen Kritik ist: Der Mensch macht die Religion, die Religion macht nicht den Menschen. Und zwar ist die Religion das Selbstbewusstsein und das Selbstgefühl des Menschen, der sich selbst entweder noch nicht erworben, oder schon wieder verloren hat. Aber der Mensch, das ist kein abstraktes, außer der Welt hockendes Wesen. Der Mensch, das ist die Welt des Menschen, Staat, Societät. Dieser Staat, diese Societät produzieren die Religion, ein verkehrtes Weltbewusstsein, weil sie eine verkehrte Welt sind. Die Religion ist die allgemeine Theorie dieser Welt, ihr encyklopädisches Compendium, ihre Logik in populärer Form, ihr spiritualistischer Point-d’honneur, ihr Enthusiasmus, ihre moralische Sanktion, ihre feierliche Ergänzung, ihr allgemeiner Trost- und Rechtfertigungsgrund. Sie ist die phantastische Verwirklichung des menschlichen Wesens, weil das menschliche Wesen keine wahre Wirklichkeit besitzt. Der Kampf gegen die Religion ist also mittelbar der Kampf gegen jene Welt, deren geistiges Aroma die Religion ist.

Das religiöse Elend ist in einem der Ausdruck des wirklichen Elendes und in einem die Protestation gegen das wirkliche Elend. Die Religion ist der Seufzer der bedrängten Kreatur, das Gemüth einer herzlosen Welt, wie sie der Geist geistloser Zustände ist. Sie ist das Opium des Volks.

Die Aufhebung der Religion als des illusorischen Glücks des Volkes ist die Forderung seines wirklichen Glücks. Die Forderung, die Illusionen über seinen Zustand aufzugeben, ist die Forderung, einen Zustand aufzugeben, der der Illusionen bedarf. Die Kritik der Religion ist also im Keim die Kritik des Jammerthales, dessen Heiligenschein die Religion ist.“

– Karl Marx: Einleitung zu Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie; in: Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher 1844, S. 71f<a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_des_Volkes#cite_note-4"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a>

Translation:
The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man, which he has either not yet acquired or has already lost again. But man is not an abstract being sitting outside the world. Man is the world of man, state, society. This state, this society, produces religion, a perverted consciousness of the world, because it is a perverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its general consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of human nature, because human nature has no true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious misery is, on the one hand, the expression of real misery and, on the other, the protest against real misery. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about their condition is the demand to give up a condition that requires illusions. The critique of religion is therefore, in essence, the critique of the vale of tears, whose halo is religion.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

-----

First of all, opium was considered a kind of panacea at that time. Sherlock Holmes, for example, consumed opium - the brilliant fictional private investigator and most astute detective. And I think that in a certain way (poetic choice of words), Karl Marx also refers to the opium-addicted poet Novalis. (Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions.)

One problem in this context is, for example, the 'opium' to say to “give up a state that requires illusions” will create a better world. Example: No one has a problem giving up the state of “death,” which requires the “illusion” of believing (= not knowing!) that there will be something on the other side of death. To say that there will be nothing is also an “illusion.”

Nevertheless, because of such statements (religion = opium), up to 20 million Russians and up to 100 million Chinese were murdered (the actual numbers are hopefully much lower).

So does such a lack of “illusions” and the bare facts of so many millions of senseless deaths now create more happiness and a better world? Or is Christmas - rich on facts and rich on illusions - perhaps better suited to making people happy here in our "Valley of Lamentation" (=vale of tears) — whether it's Karl Marx lamenting or others lamenting?

 

[BartholomewB]

No, I disagree.
You know what you mean.

No one else does.
If you want some meaningful discussion on the topic, you will need to provide more clear information.

@Dissenter says he or she knows what it means, but he or she is mistaken. It doesn't mean anything.

 

[Dissenter]

Unless you wish to claim the destruction of spirituality is, in fact, a spiritual quality.

Are you sure they meant to destroy rather than harness it? The Soviet Union did extensive research into parapsychology, ESP, psychonautics, remote viewing, etc.

Of course, that is a very qualified justification. Marxism is atheistic in nature. It is not a type of spirituality at all.
Seeking the destruction of spirituality does not actually make Marxism spiritual.

Am I talking to Catholics or atheists? Does sin go away if you stop acknowledging and managing it?

Are you people denying that it is possible to form a spiritual rapport with someone if you sin and don't pray?

If you were raised completely atheist, would you not still be susceptible to sin?

Can it be the Communists wanted to remove an effective barrier to unhealthy rapport in order to help the less able of society?

Did they create a system which allows this by accident? Is it an accident that one of Marx's first works of his adult life was a thinly disguised act of copying? Which was criticized for it, leading him (oh, ok, PERHAPS leading him) to create a system which permitted and justified his way? Can it be he chose drama because the practitioners of law or engineering or medicine led less sinful lives and were thus harder to crib from, which put a crimp in his plan to be a big shot by borrowing the inspirations of the more able?

Back to the point of the OP, religions of the ancient Near East considered the solar plexus to be the seat of the soul. Can it be the most important commandment is simply an instruction to love God while being mindful of the solar plexus, heart, and mind? Because it may well be how those words would have been taken in the ancient world. Buddha was royal and educated. Can it be they cribbed (and removed the God from) Metta from Judaism or a similar ancient Near East religion?