Religion II

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

It was logistically impossible to close down every religion. The goal was to indoctrinate the youth with the propaganda of atheism. However, all this begs the question. Why would Marx, Lenin, Stalin, etc eschew religion in favor of the tool of atheism, especially if religion is such an effective method of control over the masses?

I look a this in the light of Communism being a new "religion" itself, and looking to eliminate the competition. Historically, organized religion has often been used for control, and the leaders of churches were used to enforce the policies of the aristocrats/monarchs.

In 1917 when the Czar and his family were killed, it didn't take long for the new Communists to realize that the churches still held a lot of power, being a remnant of the old hierarchy, and had to be done away with as well. They chose atheism as a de facto replacement, but could have had similar results using other systems - as long as that system was directly under Communist control. They probably could have been more effective by establishing an official state religion, and building on that. I reckon they figured the "vacuum" of less influence of anti-religion would provide more control, but it didn't work out that way.

The 1930s and 1940s provide a great example of how authoritarianism is independent of religion. In Germany (Catholic), the Soviet Union (atheistic, sort of), Italy (Catholic), Japan (Shinto and Buddhism), and even the U.S. (Christian), government power usurped the religious institutions, at least in many of the aspects of people's lives.

Organized religion and tyrannies often share many of the same bad traits - and therefore, IMHO, the "propaganda of atheism" is no different than the "propaganda of theocracy".

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

I look a this in the light of Communism being a new "religion" itself, and looking to eliminate the competition. Historically, organized religion has often been used for control, and the leaders of churches were used to enforce the policies of the aristocrats/monarchs.

In 1917 when the Czar and his family were killed, it didn't take long for the new Communists to realize that the churches still held a lot of power, being a remnant of the old hierarchy, and had to be done away with as well. They chose atheism as a de facto replacement, but could have had similar results using other systems - as long as that system was directly under Communist control. They probably could have been more effective by establishing an official state religion, and building on that. I reckon they figured the "vacuum" of less influence of anti-religion would provide more control, but it didn't work out that way.

The 1930s and 1940s provide a great example of how authoritarianism is independent of religion. In Germany (Catholic), the Soviet Union (atheistic, sort of), Italy (Catholic), Japan (Shinto and Buddhism), and even the U.S. (Christian), government power usurped the religious institutions, at least in many of the aspects of people's lives.

Organized religion and tyrannies often share many of the same bad traits - and therefore, IMHO, the "propaganda of atheism" is no different than the "propaganda of theocracy".

The bad trait is men wanting to control other men. It would be disingenuous for me to propose religion is immune from this threat and never had been used to control the population.

Men being men, who believe they know what is best or simply want power use any organization, in society, to control people including politics.

Then there are the zealots, who agree with the agenda of those men who want to control. The zealots are the prime movers in imposing the will over the masses, while working inside the masses.

A few questions? I assume you have read the Bible, due to your background. Did Jesus ever compel anyone to believe in him or his teachings? Did the Apostles force people to follow their teachings about Jesus?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

That's a lot of commandments. I was overloaded with 10.



I wasn't offended. Thanks for adding in the bit about Moral Relativism, as it's one of the great challenges for us today. Many problems in society are often based on, as James Howard Kunstler would say, an attitude that leads to trouble because "We live in an age where everything goes, and nothing matters."

I'm certainly a product, in many ways of my Christian upbringing, but I like to think I've been influenced by what I would call "Natural Law", outside of the Bible. Many cultures across the world share similar values to those in the Ten Commandments, and have their roots in the practical rules that allow for a tribe to survive and flourish.

I don't know how we solve today's moral dilemmas, but one approach I see that's promising is removing the government's moral influence from our lives. The fallout from what can be described as the Cultural Marxist agenda of .GOV has been horrific.

Natural Law is fine but it isn't "perfect" as God's revealed law which is also a perfect reflection of his holy character. And the reason it isn't is because humans are badly flawed and we still tend to add our own rules to "natural law". I could ask you, for example, from whence did you learn Natural Law?
Is Natural Law absolutely true, as God's revealed Law is (cf. Ps 119:142)?

Ps 19:7a
7 The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul;
NASB

See also Rom 12:2 in this regard.

[thaskalos]

Is it okay to respect a "religion"...while loathing the organized church that presumes to represent it?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Is it okay to respect a "religion"...while loathing the organized church that presumes to represent it?

No, it isn't because the church is the Body of Christ. You loathe his "body", you loathe Him.

Paul before his conversion persecuted Christ's church. But when Christ called him into his glorious kingdom, he asked Saul:

Acts 9:3-6
3 And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5 And he said, "Who art Thou, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do. "
NASB

Of course, this works the other way as well:

Matt 25:34-41
34 "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' 37 "Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink? 38 'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 'And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40 "And the King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'
NASB

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But...the inclusion of "ideas" and "allegations" in the definition implies that those ideas or allegations need NOT be true, i.e. factual.

Correct. But neither do they need to be false. The purpose of propaganda is to propagate and if the truth serves that purpose so much the better.

The point is that "atheism is propaganda" simply is not true since it does not fit the definition.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Again I ask. Why would someone who is not a communist believe communist propaganda?

Do you really have to ask that? The purpose of propaganda is to propagate. In the case of communist propaganda the purpose is to convince someone who is not a communist to become a communist. Obviously some non-communists will believe the propaganda and become communists.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

If religion is so effective why do you think Marx and Lenin didn't use religion to control the masses?

Because atheism was a tenet of Marxism. "Religion is the opiate of the people." Marxism was supposed to free the workers from their oppressors. "The workers have nothing to lose but their chains." If you are going to oppress the people while claiming to free them from oppression then using the same tool their former oppressors used is hardly a good strategy.

By the way, it was not Marx and Lenin. Marx never lead a revolution in all his life. He believed communism would evolve naturally and peacefully into the default economic system. He wrote books which did not sell well while he was alive. I understand that during the last years of his life he gave up on communism and became a stockbroker.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Why do you think only atheists would vote for an atheist?

From Pew Research Center:

"About half of Americans (51%) say they would be less likely to support an atheist candidate for president, more than say the same about a candidate with any other trait mentioned in a Pew Research Center survey – including being Muslim."

I am making the reasonable assumption that those who would not support an atheist for president also would not support an atheist for congress, senate, governor, etc.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...bout-atheists/

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Do you know how to read?

Sorry about that. When I cut and pasted your post to my word processor the "Washington" did not make the trip. My fault.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Actor

By the way, it was not Marx and Lenin. Marx never lead a revolution in all his life. He believed communism would evolve naturally and peacefully into the default economic system. He wrote books which did not sell well while he was alive. I understand that during the last years of his life he gave up on communism and became a stockbroker.

I've done a little fact checking on this and must make two corrections:

1. Specifically, Capital did not sell well. I do not know about sales of his other work.
2. He did not become a stockbroker, rather, he speculated in stocks.

-30-

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Correct. But neither do they need to be false. The purpose of propaganda is to propagate and if the truth serves that purpose so much the better.

The point is that "atheism is propaganda" simply is not true since it does not fit the definition.

It is true because atheism is a self-defeating philosophy; therefore, it cannot be factual (true).

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

It is true because atheism is a self-defeating philosophy...

in what way is atheism "self-defeating"?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, he's all those things because of the way you misinterpret scripture.

Would you be willing to give us your interpretation of a few lines of scripture? Specifically the lines which I supposedly misinterpret?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

in what way is atheism "self-defeating"?

Seriously? You're going to ask this after we've been down this road so often?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Would you be willing to give us your interpretation of a few lines of scripture? Specifically the lines which I supposedly misinterpret?

Simple. Scripture teaches that God is an eternal, loving, merciful, compassion, just, holy and righteous being. Therefore, he cannot possibly BE the things you have claimed that he is. What you do is deliberately twist and distort scripture out of its three-fold context and create him as a monster. He cannot be your self-created monster and also be the things I just wrote. Either all the people who wrote scripture were village idiots and contradicted themselves every way but loose OR...you have done what I say you have. You don't want to believe in God which is why you paint him as horrible monster. This self-created monster justifies your unbelief in your own mind -- or more accurately the denial of his existence.