Why is it absurd to live for God?

[wanstronian]

The estimated deaths caused by the Inquisition total up to roughly 2,000, and that’s spread out over the course of several hundred years.

And what about Stalin and Mao? These monsters killed more people in several decades than the Church did in 2000 years, and they killed in peacetime. The objection that they didn’t kill in the name of atheism doesn’t fly, because atheism is a core concept of communism.

Firstly, the Tu Quoque fallacy doesn’t wash. Saying that Mao and Stalin killed more than the Church doesn’t magically excuse the Church its murders.

Secondly, it seems you’re desperately in need of some education:

Nowhere in the Communist Manifesto does it mandate atheism. Atheism is not a necessary component of Communism. Communism is a political and economical ideology, not a religious one.

You must be aware that many of the teachings of Jesus are Socialist in nature? Matthew 6:19-20; Mark 10:21, 25; Luke 12:33. Have you heard of the Christian Communist Party? Also Google “Christian Communism.” Your claim that “atheism is a core concept of communism” is swiftly debunked.

However, it is true that institutionalised religion generally isn’t compatible with Communism - but not because of any particular religious beliefs; rather because historically, religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has been used as a tool to oppress the masses; to keep the rich rich, and the poor poor (Hello again, Mother T). Such a regime is clearly contrary to the classless society aspired to by Socialism. So for practical purposes, Communism has historically rejected religion - not the faith aspects, but the oppressive political aspects. Communists can still be religious, as I have indicated.

From The Communist Manifesto:
Communist Manifesto:

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious… ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion… constantly survived this change.
“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

Furthermore, in the list of measures to be taken to initiate Communism, none of them either states or implies the necessity of atheism; or even mentions it.

There is a section in the “Principles of Communism” that states that Communism makes religion “superfluous.” This quite clearly, when taken in the context of the manifesto as a whole, refers to the role of religion in “class antagonisms.” Unsurprisingly it has been seized upon by theists as meaning that atheism is necessary to Communism; and this misinformation then propagated as such throughout the theist community. I suspect this is where you’ve got your erroneous ideas from. There is, of course, a huge difference between superfluity and interdiction, but it’s a distinction commonly ignored by theists (unsurprisingly - there’s no good reason to reject atheism, so theists are forced to make up reasons!)

All of this is of course irrelevant, because the misunderstood atheistic aspect of Communism is clearly not the driving force behind the oppressive nature of the regime. The atheistic aspect of Communism is there to remove religious “class antagonisms”; it’s just that Communism then replaces this with another form of oppression - in order to maintain its Socialist paradigm it must closely control its citizens. You still end up with Rich and Poor, but through different mechanisms and for different reasons.

Please don’t take my word for any of this - look it up for yourself. But for your own sake, use a resource that has no religious affiliation.

Marxism demands that the “opiate of the masses” be eliminated to make way for the proletariat’s “inevitable dominance”. Christianity and marxism are simply incompatible one so many levels, and Karl Marx’s idea of peace was when all opponents of socialism have been eliminated.

You’re right that Christianity and Marxism are, in practice, incompatible, you’ve just got your reasoning wrong. Probably because Christianity has aligned itself so closely with Capitalism, it’s often seen as synonymous (this is clearly wrong, of course, as there are plenty of atheist Capitalists, just as there are plenty of Christian Communists). Therefore it’s often assumed that because Capitalism is seen as good and incompatible with Socialism, then Christianity is good and incompatible with Communism. It’s a massive non sequitur.

Your entire argument here is irrelevant, because Marxism is no more a product of atheism than Capitalism is a product of Christianity. The opressive acts of Marxism are a result of political and economical ideology, not of religious ideology.

So please, quit with the “atheism causes evil” nonsense - it has no evidentiary basis whatsoever, and you just expose your ignorance.

 

[wanstronian]

Of course not. In the Bible it does not refer to whether those who were stoned to death were sorry for their sins or not, it only makes mention of their sins and corresponding punishment, so it is fair to assume that they were not sorry. In this way, the punishment, in accordance with punishing those who are not sorry for offending God, is just.

So because it’s not written down that they were sorry, you assume they weren’t? Wow - you’re a real “guilty until proven innocent” kinda guy, aren’t you!

And even if this man wasn’t sorry… MURDERING him for picking up some sticks? I ask again - do you think this would be justified punishment today?

Punishment through generations makes sense as people brought up by sinners tend to be sinners themselves. Never did it say that the next generations were not sinners, or repentant sinners, or righteous. It is fair to assume that in the continuity of generations came the continuity of sin.

You have a very blinkered and desolate view of humanity. If what you say is the case, why did God stop at four generations? Where is the social study that supports your assertion that sinners beget sinners? Or do you just believe it because the bible says it?

No irony is intended. I have simply chosen that alias as a continual reminder of the type of person that I aspire to be. Besides, what gives you the right to judge me based on your interpretation of a few of my posts? If you were to encounter me elsewhere, you would not think me to be a troll. Maybe you’re jumping around a little too quickly. Be at peace.

I assumed you’re a troll mainly because your earlier post is outrageously offensive to good moral sensitivities. I cannot believe a normal decent person can genuinely think that way. Of course I have the right to judge you on the basis of your posts - how else? If I met you I suspect I would be worried for my safety, quite honestly.

Ironic that you ask me to “be at peace” given your explicit acceptance of violence out of all proportion to the misdemeanour.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Firstly, the Tu Quoque fallacy doesn’t wash. Saying that Mao and Stalin killed more than the Church doesn’t magically excuse the Church its murders.

Secondly, it seems you’re desperately in need of some education:

Nowhere in the Communist Manifesto does it mandate atheism. Atheism is not a necessary component of Communism. Communism is a political and economical ideology, not a religious one.

You must be aware that many of the teachings of Jesus are Socialist in nature? Matthew 6:19-20; Mark 10:21, 25; Luke 12:33. Have you heard of the Christian Communist Party? Also Google “Christian Communism.” Your claim that “atheism is a core concept of communism” is swiftly debunked.

However, it is true that institutionalised religion generally isn’t compatible with Communism - but not because of any particular religious beliefs; rather because historically, religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has been used as a tool to oppress the masses; to keep the rich rich, and the poor poor (Hello again, Mother T). Such a regime is clearly contrary to the classless society aspired to by Socialism. So for practical purposes, Communism has historically rejected religion - not the faith aspects, but the oppressive political aspects. Communists can still be religious, as I have indicated.

From The Communist Manifesto:

Furthermore, in the list of measures to be taken to initiate Communism, none of them either states or implies the necessity of atheism; or even mentions it.

There is a section in the “Principles of Communism” that states that Communism makes religion “superfluous.” This quite clearly, when taken in the context of the manifesto as a whole, refers to the role of religion in “class antagonisms.” Unsurprisingly it has been seized upon by theists as meaning that atheism is necessary to Communism; and this misinformation then propagated as such throughout the theist community. I suspect this is where you’ve got your erroneous ideas from. There is, of course, a huge difference between superfluity and interdiction, but it’s a distinction commonly ignored by theists (unsurprisingly - there’s no good reason to reject atheism, so theists are forced to make up reasons!)

All of this is of course irrelevant, because the misunderstood atheistic aspect of Communism is clearly not the driving force behind the oppressive nature of the regime. The atheistic aspect of Communism is there to remove religious “class antagonisms”; it’s just that Communism then replaces this with another form of oppression - in order to maintain its Socialist paradigm it must closely control its citizens. You still end up with Rich and Poor, but through different mechanisms and for different reasons.

Please don’t take my word for any of this - look it up for yourself. But for your own sake, use a resource that has no religious affiliation.

You’re right that Christianity and Marxism are, in practice, incompatible, you’ve just got your reasoning wrong. Probably because Christianity has aligned itself so closely with Capitalism, it’s often seen as synonymous (this is clearly wrong, of course, as there are plenty of atheist Capitalists, just as there are plenty of Christian Communists). Therefore it’s often assumed that because Capitalism is seen as good and incompatible with Socialism, then Christianity is good and incompatible with Communism. It’s a massive non sequitur.

Your entire argument here is irrelevant, because Marxism is no more a product of atheism than Capitalism is a product of Christianity. The opressive acts of Marxism are a result of political and economical ideology, not of religious ideology.

So please, quit with the “atheism causes evil” nonsense - it has no evidentiary basis whatsoever, and you just expose your ignorance.

I don’t know if you ever went to a communist nation, or ever lived in one, yet you seem so confident about your knowledge of true Communism. But since Karl Marx said “Religion is the opium of the impotent”, thus we see the foundation of communism, which base itself on Karl Marx, it indeed Atheism. I’ve lived in Vietnam for about 12 years, do I have to tell you what’s the treatment for people of religion, especially Christians both Catholic and Protestants? You probably didn’t live in Russia where they tortured and killed countless of Jews and Christians for their religious beliefs, didn’t you learn what Stalin did when he invaded the Christian Ukraine? Furthermore, China itself during the Cultural Revolution decided it gonna destroys any relics of all religions, Christianity is always the main opponent, then Buddhism and even Confucianism. And yet you’re here, cross your arms and say Atheism is not the main component of Communism because there are those out there who claim to be"Christian communist".

Christianity itself call all Christians to live in the vow of poverty, to abandon all materialistic meaning of life and to embrace the spiritual messages of Christ. Yes, you can say w call people to a socialist life. But unfortunately, we are not Communists because we don’t force people to do so, we don’t force them to sell all of their possessions, we don’t leave them no choice like the Communist regime. To say Atheism and Secularism are not the main component after Atheism is like saying tomato is not the main component of a New York pizza.
(P.S, you should also learn about the French Revolution during the reign of terror when the decided to massacre Christians to “enlighten” them of a secular society, what can I say, the Atheist wars only happen for a few hundreds years and look how much they’ve killed comparing to the wars cause by “religion”)

 

[UnityofTrinity]

I assumed you’re a troll mainly because your earlier post is outrageously offensive to good moral sensitivities. I cannot believe a normal decent person can genuinely think that way. Of course I have the right to judge you on the basis of your posts - how else? If I met you I suspect I would be worried for my safety, quite honestly.

Ironic that you ask me to “be at peace” given your explicit acceptance of violence out of all proportion to the misdemeanour.

“outrageously offensive to good moral sensitivities”, well, I need to ask this question one more time, what is morality? Assume that we’re created from nothing and nothing at all and there’s no such thing as a meaning of life, well, we’re only here to survive, either kill or get killed, we’re animals. Of course you would come up maybe with a Social Darwinist explanation for morality, maybe it’ll go like this: “morality is the function in which help bring a society together” or “it’s something that help us survive”. Of course if it helped the ppl in the OT survive, then I must ask why are you criticizing them? So you’re criticizing them base on wht you decide is moral and what you decide is immoral, are you God?

Given that you’re not God and there’s no such thing as God, we should truly be at peace with ourselves that there’s no such thing out there as morality. Since there’s no such thing as morality, the “troll” can’t offend any “good moral sensitivities”.

 

[Altruist]

So because it’s not written down that they were sorry, you assume they weren’t? Wow - you’re a real “guilty until proven innocent” kinda guy, aren’t you!

And even if this man wasn’t sorry… MURDERING him for picking up some sticks? I ask again - do you think this would be justified punishment today?

You have a very blinkered and desolate view of humanity. If what you say is the case, why did God stop at four generations? Where is the social study that supports your assertion that sinners beget sinners? Or do you just believe it because the bible says it?

I assumed you’re a troll mainly because your earlier post is outrageously offensive to good moral sensitivities. I cannot believe a normal decent person can genuinely think that way. Of course I have the right to judge you on the basis of your posts - how else? If I met you I suspect I would be worried for my safety, quite honestly.

Ironic that you ask me to “be at peace” given your explicit acceptance of violence out of all proportion to the misdemeanour.

According to the Law of God, all that occurred within the Bible was and is fully just. Today? That didn’t happen today. That happened in the day of Moses. Is the Law the same as it was then? No.

The Bible is its own evidence.

Please, calm yourself. I accepted violence simply because the act that promoted such violence was offensive to God, and so, in theory, it ought to be offensive to me…if I am to call myself a Christian, and since I do, I must accept the law and will of God. I only accepted the violence because it was wrought in order to punish the offense to God. God takes sins quite seriously. There is the biblical reference of death being the wages of sin. I only accepted the violence as it was justified by God’s law. Unjustified violence I do not accept. You seem to be under the impression that I see all violence, even that which is grossly unjustified, as acceptable. I do not. I only wish to be closer to God.

 

[Altruist]

“outrageously offensive to good moral sensitivities”, well, I need to ask this question one more time, what is morality? Assume that we’re created from nothing and nothing at all and there’s no such thing as a meaning of life, well, we’re only here to survive, either kill or get killed, we’re animals. Of course you would come up maybe with a Social Darwinist explanation for morality, maybe it’ll go like this: “morality is the function in which help bring a society together” or “it’s something that help us survive”. Of course if it helped the ppl in the OT survive, then I must ask why are you criticizing them? So you’re criticizing them base on wht you decide is moral and what you decide is immoral, are you God?

Given that you’re not God and there’s no such thing as God, we should truly be at peace with ourselves that there’s no such thing out there as morality. Since there’s no such thing as morality, the “troll” can’t offend any “good moral sensitivities”.

From such a viewpoint, such a conclusion would hold to be valid…

…but especially since I do believe in God, and thus the morality set forth by His instruction, I would like to express my apologies for offending anyone whom I may have. If I happened to state anything that was taken as offensive, I did not mean to do so, I only meant to illustrate the connection conceived in my mind on the topic. The offensive appearance of my expression was not intended to be offensive in any way. My sincere apologies.

 

[wanstronian]

“outrageously offensive to good moral sensitivities”, well, I need to ask this question one more time, what is morality? Assume that we’re created from nothing and nothing at all and there’s no such thing as a meaning of life, well, we’re only here to survive, either kill or get killed, we’re animals. Of course you would come up maybe with a Social Darwinist explanation for morality, maybe it’ll go like this: “morality is the function in which help bring a society together” or “it’s something that help us survive”. Of course if it helped the ppl in the OT survive, then I must ask why are you criticizing them? So you’re criticizing them base on wht you decide is moral and what you decide is immoral, are you God?

Given that you’re not God and there’s no such thing as God, we should truly be at peace with ourselves that there’s no such thing out there as morality. Since there’s no such thing as morality, the “troll” can’t offend any “good moral sensitivities”.

No, I’m not God. However, that doesn’t make evolved morality the wrong answer. In fact, it’s the only plausible answer. The morality of OT days fitted well with their society at the time - witness the acceptance of slavery, women’s suffrage (still evident today in most religious doctrines, by the way), the absence of the concept of basic human rights, and so on. All moral decrepitudes that have been all but banished by today’s secular morality. Morality has moved on, as society has evolved. The Morality of the OT is barbaric, judged by the morality of the 21st century. And I predict that the humans of the 30th century will consider some of our 21st century practices morally outrageous, even if today we see nothing wrong with them.

The theist’s bleat of “without God, there is no morality” is obviously, and provably, wrong; and those who repeat it are simply rating their personal opinion and desire above cold, hard facts.

 

[wanstronian]

According to the Law of God, all that occurred within the Bible was and is fully just. Today? That didn’t happen today. That happened in the day of Moses. Is the Law the same as it was then? No.

So has the law of God changed since then? Where has this update been captured?

The Bible is its own evidence.

It certainly is - it’s the epitome of self-referencing self-justication! But it doesn’t prove a damn thing - I could easily write a book that proclaims a different “truth,” and it would be just as objectively valid as the bible.

Please, calm yourself. I accepted violence simply because the act that promoted such violence was offensive to God, and so, in theory, it ought to be offensive to me…if I am to call myself a Christian, and since I do, I must accept the law and will of God. I only accepted the violence because it was wrought in order to punish the offense to God. God takes sins quite seriously. There is the biblical reference of death being the wages of sin. I only accepted the violence as it was justified by God’s law. Unjustified violence I do not accept. You seem to be under the impression that I see all violence, even that which is grossly unjustified, as acceptable. I do not. I only wish to be closer to God.

Yes - I think this unthinking fundamentalism is part of the problem. A thinking man would probably ask himself, “What sort of God is this, that punishes people so cruelly for such an innocuous act? Do such actions fit with the idea of a benevolent God? Clearly not - so is this the sort of God I want to worship?”

But instead, you seem to be saying to yourself, “This is God’s will because it says so in the bible, and the bible is true because it says so in the bible, therefore I’ll believe it regardless of the inconsistencies, contradictions, impossibilities and improbabilities, anachronisms, general lack of any independent supporting evidence whatsoever.”

I don’t think blind acceptance of cruelty without rational justification, is a very moral or intelligent stance.

 

[DCNBILL]

It is significant that there are no responses. Silence implies consent…

AMEN!

Hows that for consent!