Is burning the communist manifesto a sin for christians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catilina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Destroying an object is not a sin, but it might be rather rude if it belongs to someone else. You’re probably wondering this because, say, to Muslims, burning a Quran is a big deal. Well to Christians, we don’t make a big deal about people treating their inanimate property as they please, so you can do whatever you want, but its stupid to try and make a big public scene out of burning the communist manifesto. Just be an adult about it.
 
Communism is evil, pure and simple. It is not a sin to try and stop evil.

Take it from there.
 
Isn’t Marxism / Communism Manifesto an aethist political party & economic doctrine.

Althou, Islam, in many countries requires Islamic religious control over the government.
 
Well yeah I can. I was rised as a christian, but seeing all the sorrow in the world, i don’t see religion as solution, but communism.

Although i distanceed myself from christianity, cause i don’t really like so much fancy stuff, and i think that all the prayers to the saints evolve more and more, so far that it starts to contredict the second(?) commandement, I still believe in god, but a god, who let usself take descisions, that we should take care for ourselves.
 
Burning the Communist Manifesto is virtuous, if you observe local ordinances.
 
Catilina said:
Well yeah I can. I was rised as a christian, but seeing all the sorrow in the world, i don’t see religion as solution, but communism.

Although i distanceed myself from christianity, cause i don’t really like so much fancy stuff, and i think that all the prayers to the saints evolve more and more, so far that it starts to contredict the second(?) commandement, I still believe in god, but a god, who let usself take descisions, that we should take care for ourselves.
Click to expand...
So in short you are not a Catholic. Now that is OK and your choice but it is as well to be honest about things and not make false declarations.

If your post accurately describes your view you are a lapsed Catholic who now does not believe in the Christian God and accepts deterministic materialism whilst holding on to some notion of a “god” who acts an an externalised personification of your own moral.political viewpoint.
 
Catilina said:
Well yeah I can. I was rised as a christian, but seeing all the sorrow in the world, i don’t see religion as solution, but communism.
Click to expand...
Don’t know much about history or human nature, do you? One wonders if we will ever be able to recover a competent educational system to overcome thinking like this.

The evidence is in. The facts are known. Learn them.

Sad, really.
 
quasimodo said:
Don’t know much about history or human nature, do you? One wonders if we will ever be able to recover a competent educational system to overcome thinking like this.

The evidence is in. The facts are known. Learn them.

Sad, really.
Click to expand...
I think there is a generalised innocence, actual genuine innocence, in the West about the nature of what the Atheist Communist reality actually is or was or would be. We in the West have never actually seen it up close and personal. Look at the position of Dawkins for instance who genuinely believes atheism innocent of blood in the 20th century.

There is a profound and almost immovable desire among the secular to suppose that somehow reliance on determinist notions will free us or cure our ills. No amount of second hand evidence from the Gulags or Killing Fields will remove that.
 
It’s not a sin to burn a book. Why would you be burning it though? My guess is that it would be an act of provocation rather than something you would do alone in your house.

I think it is rather ignorant to think of communism as evil or even inherently atheistic: while communism historically has opposed organised religion, I don’t think there is any real ideological reason why the two cannot coexist. Also, I find that a ton of communist principles are more in keeping with Christ’s teachings than Capitalist/Consumerist ones.
 
I am going to speak about the real question–is it a sin to burn the Koran? Simply destroying a book should be no sin, and the Koran is simply another book to Catholics in any case.
But it could be a sin for two reasons. It it goes along with international publicity that predictably will result in Christians being killed in Moslem countries, it could be a sin for that reason.
Insulting someone’s religion gratitously could also be a sin. What comes to my mind are the “art” works of recent years which show Christ or Mary in obscene poses, art works that were featured in various art museums and shows. It is possible that this involved sin, though of course the artists most probably were not believers. Does burning the Koran as a sign of contempt for the Koran or for Islam also perhaps involve sin sometimes?
 
Catilina said:
Well yeah I can. I was rised as a christian, but seeing all the sorrow in the world, i don’t see religion as solution, but communism.

Although i distanceed myself from christianity, cause i don’t really like so much fancy stuff, and i think that all the prayers to the saints evolve more and more, so far that it starts to contredict the second(?) commandement, I still believe in god, but a god, who let usself take descisions, that we should take care for ourselves.
Click to expand...
Then stop pretending you are a Catholic and remove the word from your profile.
From the silly questions you ask I’m not sure what you really are!
Communism is definitely NOT an answer to anything. It is evil and oppressive!
 
Catilina said:
Well yeah I can. I was rised as a christian, but seeing all the sorrow in the world, i don’t see religion as solution, but communism.

Although i distanceed myself from christianity, cause i don’t really like so much fancy stuff, and i think that all the prayers to the saints evolve more and more, so far that it starts to contredict the second(?) commandement, I still believe in god, but a god, who let usself take descisions, that we should take care for ourselves.
Click to expand...
It is logically impossible to be both a Communist (Marxist) and to believe in God, or any supernatural being of any kind. If you have actually read the Communist Manifesto, you would know that Marx bases his whole theory on atheism and materialism (denial that anything or anyone is real unless it is physically material). Violence against religious people especally Christians is not some sort of wayward deviation of Communism, it is the very essence of it. Marx urged his followers to violently stamp out religious believers and their beliefs in every way possible. He lived long enough to see the doing this in Paris in the 1870s and he warm;ly applauded their actions.

Unless you are playing semantic games and calling yourself an anti-Marxist “communist” such as monks or nuns who VOLUNTARILY live a communitarian lifestyle.
 
For the poster who sees Marxism/Communism as the solution:

“State retribution for tiny thefts, such as stealing a potato, even by a child, would include being tied up and thrown into a pond…”
“… parents were forced to bury their children alive or were doused in excrement and urine, others were set alight, or had a nose or ear cut off. One record shows how a man was branded with hot metal. People were forced to work naked in the middle of winter; 80 per cent of all the villagers in one region of a quarter of a million Chinese were banned from the official canteen because they were too old or ill to be effective workers, so were deliberately starved to death.”

This is the real history of Communism in this world… the above is the Chinese version and their Great Leap Forward. Want to learn about Pol Pot? How about Stalin? East Germany?

Ever been to a communist country? I have. In a word … UGLY.

Education has failed utterly.
 
Sole problem is, comrades, that i’m not a marxist, but a trotskist, and i see the problem of the church in marx readings as a minor issue. Your problem comrades, is that you think communism=communism! You could also say religion=religion, but you know it ain’t true, lets take 2 opposites: satanism/catholicism and stalinism/trotskism.
You don’t have to turn mad about my religious belonging text in my profile, i know what i’ve written there, and while i feel myself still more like a catholic, than a believer in god, i’ve written catholic & communist.(in first place i wanted to write catholic trotskist, but figuring out that you dont know him, the usa want to keep him low, so they are only mentioning stalin, i’ve written communist)

Now the communism you all talk about is in fact Stalinism, while I’m a Trotskist, and if you would know him, you would know that he was among the first to crtiticise Stalin for his deeds.

Here a short explenation of trotskism:
One of the two main branches of Leninism; developed upon by Leon Trotsky, co-leader of the Russian Revolution and founder of the Red Army. Trotskyists oppose strongly Stalinism and its related ideologies. Trotskyists believe in a theory known as Permanent Revolution. Permanent Revolution contains a number of theories. One of these planks is the belief that a socialist revolution can occur in a backward, even feudalist country, by moving from the capitalist-democratic stage to the socialist one. Trotsky also believed that Lenin’s pre-1917 idea of the “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry” needed to be re-worded to emphasize the importance of the proletariat’s leadership in such an alliance, because the peasantry were dialectically less capable of leadership. Also, in order to finish a socialist revolution, the revolution would have to be world-wide. This is in sharp contrast to Stalin’s idea of “socialism in one country”; Trotsky felt (correctly so) that if a socialist nation-state was isolated, it would soon be destroyed by outside imperialist forces. Trotsky emphasized the importance of soviets (independent councils of workers) and the idea that a communist society will be a “workers’ democracy.” After Stalin took power and his caste executed his opponents, Trotsky classified the Soviet Union as a “degenerated workers state” and the Soviet Communist Party as “bureaucratic centralist.” The Soviet degenerated workers state was more progressive than Western capitalism and therefore worthy of defense against American imperialism; however, another revolution of the workers was necessary to unseat the Stalinist bureaucracy, who would continue to destroy the workers state until it became fully capitalist. Today, the largest world Trotskyist organization is the Fourth International (USFI). For many decades, the chief Trotskyist group in the US was the Socialist Workers Party. But between 1979-1983, the SWP abandoned Trotskyism for Castroism and most of the Trotskyists were expelled. Today, two of the largest Trotskyist organizations are Solidarity and the Freedom Socialist Party. Considering the destruction of the USSR and the downfall of much of the Communist world, Trotsky’s prophecies seem to have been proven by history.
Click to expand...
taken from the website: reds.linefeed.org/vocab.html

I rahter think the church helps to ease pain, but it wont remedee against the source of it.

@quasimodo: you rather dont know about history and human nature 😉 you’re the typical communism= death, oppression, chaos , while nobody of us wants that.
 
now for the one arguing that communism is against the “human nature”, I say, what is human nature?
Here a extract of a anarchist answer to the human nature:
Anarchists, far from ignoring “human nature,” have the only political theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often, “human nature” is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is not the case, however. First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature, it is meant “what humans do,” it is obvious that human nature is contradictory – love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace and violence, and so on, have all been expressed by people and so are all products of “human nature.” Of course, what is considered “human nature” can change with changing social circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of “human nature” and “normal” for thousands of years. Homosexuality was considered perfectly normal by the ancient Greeks yet thousands of years later the Christian church denounced it as unnatural. War only become part of “human nature” once states developed. Individuals are certainly capable of evil. But individuals are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways of realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and options. Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted pathological killers free rein, they’d be running the place. The only way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature manifest themselves. If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions and commitments, we’re going to have a society based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might be organised in such a way that human feelings and emotions of other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant. Then you’ll have different aspects of human nature and personality revealing themselves. Indeed, one of the greatest myths about anarchism is the idea that we think human nature is inherently good (rather, we think it is inherently sociable). How it develops and expresses itself is dependent on the kind of society we live in and create. A hierarchical society will shape people in certain (negative) ways and produce a “human nature” radically different from a libertarian one. So when we hear men and women saying that Anarchists imagine men and women much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men and women less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition? Every fool, from king to policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it to-day, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed? We do not wish to enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not “innate.” All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to think and learn, that much is obvious, we feel, and that humans are sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to prosper. Moreover, they have the ability to recognise and oppose injustice and oppression. These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state are denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the human race has lived in anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top