Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

From Merriam-Webster

propaganda /ˌprɑːpəˈgændə/


noncount] usually disapproving

: ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.
[emphasis added]

propaganda
noun [ U ] US ​ /ˌprɑp·əˈɡæn·də/
​
information or ideas that are spread by an organized group or government to influence people’s opinions, esp. by not giving all the facts or by secretly emphasizing only one way of looking at the facts
[emphasis added]

dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/propaganda

Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.[1] Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies and the media can also produce propaganda. [emphasis added]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

The consensus is that propaganda is not objective, does not include all the facts and is often false or exaggerated. The first definition is especially applicable to Lenin, as he was a political leader supporting a cause.

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

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Wrong. He's all those things in scripture.

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

[Show Me the Wire]

Actor,

You persistently and vehemently insist religion oppresses and controls people. If religion is so effective why do you think Marx and Lenin didn't use religion to control the masses?

Stalin was educated in a Catholic monastery, surely Stalin would know the power of religion to control and suppress the masses, and yet he abandoned religion in favor of atheism, as the more effective way to suppress and oppress the masses. If religion is such an effective tool of suppression, why is atheism the integral tool of suppression and oppression of Marxism/communism?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Boxcar, I thought you were capable of something less flippant.

Indeed, "good" is in the eye of the beholder. But even if we start from the same playbook, it doesn't take long to get off-track.

Back in college, some of us in the dorm had a discussion over the Sixth Commandment. "Thou shalt not kill" seemed pretty straight-forward to me, though I pointed out killing can be justified at times, and that the source of this bit of wisdom didn't necessarily come from God. Outside of a few societies which indulged in human sacrifices, the practice of killing is usually counter-productive.

Then the Catholic guy down the hall (now a deacon) pointed out the original ancient texts used the phrase "thou shalt not murder". Well, that put a different light on interpretation, and a couple of the ROTC guys piped in that made killing "gooks", "sand ******s" and "queers" okay, since they were heathens anyway, and it wouldn't be murder. My born-again roommate and member of the (cult-like) college group The Navigators than proposed that The King James version had Divine direction when translated, and was flawless. He had a back-track a bit though, when reminded he was in favor of a strong national defense and capital punishment. Oddly enough, it was the atheist (and communist) across the hall who took time out from analyzing his stock portfolio to proclaim that killing was never justified. When asked if a rapist/murderer broke into his home, threatening his hypothetical wife/daughter and he was armed with a gun, his response was "I'd only shoot him in the leg."

I would probably agree with much of your interpretation of scripture on the definition of "good", and certainly won't argue about the ills of adultery, fornication, and other sins committed by many today with no fear of consequences, and how that has contributed much to the morale decline of America, which in turn has created many other problems.

But of course I differ in that my view of morality doesn't translate into a strict dogma to apply to others. There's practical limits, often blurred and unpleasant, that have to be respected - and often compromised on, since of course there is no perfection in any moral framework.

Mr. Pirate Sir, the correct translation of the 6th commandment is murder. And there is a difference between murder and killing. If you read the entire Law of Moses carefully (consisting of about 634 commandments all told), you would learn that God not only recognized this distinction but made provision in his Law for how Israelites would have to deal with killings in their land that were not the result of premeditated murder. (The killers actually had "sanctuary cities" to which to flee for protection for a period of time. These were called "cities of refuge", cf. Num 35:9-29).

Secondly, capital punishment is not premeditated murder either and is actually sanctioned in both the Old and New Testaments, even predating the Law of Moses by several centuries. This is a highly important fact, since God's institution of capital punishment after the Flood was universal in scope, applying to all mankind and not only to ancient Israel.

I apologize if my last post offended you. I wasn't trying to be flippant but rather just to the point, as I like to cut to the chase whenever I can. Everyone loves doing what is right in their own eyes, and naturally we think that whatever we do or whatever we approve of others doing is "good". (None of us like us likes to think of ourselves as being a bad apple.) Today, we call this philosophy Moral Relativism, which by the way is a thoroughly self-defeating philosophy and is old as dirt itself.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The Christian religion is false and is used to control the masses (e.g., Hitler). Why did Christianity become the official religion of Rome? Because Constantine was a Christian? Wrong. Constantine was a pagan. He told this cock an bull story to his army because religion is, to the leaders, useful.

This goes on today. Trump has (had?) the support of the evangelicals. Does anyone really believe that Mr. Grab-them-by-the-pussy is religious?

Again, thanks for providing proof the validity of the Total Depravity of Man, which is taught in the bible.

Just for your info...one's personal abuse or misuse of any religion does not prove that any of the propositional truth claims of that religion are false.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

This is true only for public offices wherein the holder of the office is hired. For elected officials the electorate can impose any test they want. If enough voters apply a certain test, e.g., the candidate must be Christian, then that candidate will not get the job if he/she fails the test. As a practical matter there is no way to prevent this.

The same applies indirectly for public offices where the holder is appointed when the appointing official is elected. E.g., the latest appointment to the Supreme Court had to pass the religious test of being acceptable to evangelical voters who had supported Trump.

Even public officers who are hired can be subjected to the religious test. Many communities would find other excuses to fire a school teacher who revealed that he/she was an atheist.

(emphasis mine)

Prove it. You do have documented proof of this, right?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Actor,

You persistently and vehemently insist religion oppresses and controls people. If religion is so effective why do you think Marx and Lenin didn't use religion to control the masses?

Stalin was educated in a Catholic monastery, surely Stalin would know the power of religion to control and suppress the masses, and yet he abandoned religion in favor of atheism, as the more effective way to suppress and oppress the masses. If religion is such an effective tool of suppression, why is atheism the integral tool of suppression and oppression of Marxism/communism?

Sometimes you do surprise me, ShowMe.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Wrong. From M-W.

propaganda:

• :the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
• :ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also :a public action having such an effect

According to the definition propaganda need not be false. It can be absolutely true. Nor is it limited to convincing people that rights only come from their leaders.

The root word of propaganda is propagate.

• :to foster growing knowledge of, familiarity with, or acceptance of (something, such as an idea or belief)

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

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I am not implying, I am stating a fact. Every society, culture, organization, operates under a philosophy. Materialism is the underlying philosophy of Marxism/communism. Also atheism is an integral part of communism.

Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism. Vladiir Lenin

Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism. Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism. Vladimir Lenin

Marx and Lenin hated religion as the oppressor of the people. No institution can hold a candle to the human oppression and bloodshed perpetrated in the name of communism.

I would argue that every culture operates under a moral construct, not philosophy, but that's probably just mincing words. Materialism and any political system are not necessarily joined the hip.

In the Soviet Union and China, and even Cuba, the transformation to a Communist form of government did not completely replace the religious institutions in place. Certainly Lenin, Mao and Castro wanted to eradicate organized religion - but replacing it with an atheistic view was not the primary goal. The primary goal was to lessen the impact of organized religion's control on people's lives, in favor of the government's control. As we know here in the US, the .gov does not like competition.

Even in Nazi Germany, there were discussions over attacking the Christian churches, but Hitler is on record stating "we'll deal with them after the war." He felt that the Christian institutions were too strong and too popular to attack - at the time.

IMHO, when you're looking at tyrannical forms of government led by sociopaths, the cause/effect of government versus organized religion has very little to do with spirituality - and everything to do with earthly compliance and control.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

[emphasis added] https://www.csustan.edu/history/darwin-hitler

Darwin and eugenics had more influence on Hitler, than the religion of his youth.

Maybe so. But the sociopathic wiring in his brain explains far more than any external influence of religion or philosophy.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

...dnlgfnk, rejects Luther's theology. According to pre-Reformation Christianity and current Apostolic teaching God definitely gives you free will. There is no rigged form of manifest destiny.

It is a disservice to hold dnlgfnk to Luther's teachings.

Hmmm. This is good to know, if I understand you correctly. A fine point, but quite critical. I associated the Lutheran version of God with all flavors of Christianity, and a less powerful version of a supreme being(s) with polytheistic faiths.

In round numbers, do you know how these two views split out within the Christian sects?

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Science is great at what it is capable of explaining. I certainly champion science, but when Hawking, Dawkins or anyone else attempts to interpret the science in terms of "why", they become philosophers.

Agreed, although there's no law against wearing more than one hat in life.

It's difficult for humans to separate out the disciplines/systems of religion, philosophy, science and government when discussing or applying them to our lives. It sure makes for a mess.

As a scientist, I used to consider it a the pinnacle of knowledge systems, with government second, and religion and philosophy in a dead heat for third. While I still consider science best when not tainted with the influences of the others, that's not how the real world works. Scientists bring their personalities to their work, and it's not easy to check their influences at the door. Government and corporate influences are also stronger today, sometimes to the point where it's often compromised and difficult to tell truth from fiction (i.e., health care, pharma and nutrition).

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Hmmm. This is good to know, if I understand you correctly. A fine point, but quite critical. I associated the Lutheran version of God with all flavors of Christianity, and a less powerful version of a supreme being(s) with polytheistic faiths.

In round numbers, do you know how these two views split out within the Christian sects?

I can't give you round numbers. However, the general split is between the traditional Apostolic churches the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which would include the Coptic and Ethiopian Churches, etc, the Roman Catholic Church, and the various Protestant churches organized under the flag of reformation, with some exceptions. For example, the Church of England claims to holds to the traditional apostolic teaching and does not follow, a version of Luther's theology.

There are basically two types of theology. Traditional Apostolic theology, which is the Theology of Glory and the general protestant theology, which is the Theology of the Cross.

The vast majority of Christians adhere to the Theology of Glory, while the protestants have a vast number of denominations, currently around +30k thousand sects.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

I would argue that every culture operates under a moral construct, not philosophy, but that's probably just mincing words. Materialism and any political system are not necessarily joined the hip.

In the Soviet Union and China, and even Cuba, the transformation to a Communist form of government did not completely replace the religious institutions in place. Certainly Lenin, Mao and Castro wanted to eradicate organized religion - but replacing it with an atheistic view was not the primary goal. The primary goal was to lessen the impact of organized religion's control on people's lives, in favor of the government's control. As we know here in the US, the .gov does not like competition.

Even in Nazi Germany, there were discussions over attacking the Christian churches, but Hitler is on record stating "we'll deal with them after the war." He felt that the Christian institutions were too strong and too popular to attack - at the time.

IMHO, when you're looking at tyrannical forms of government led by sociopaths, the cause/effect of government versus organized religion has very little to do with spirituality - and everything to do with earthly compliance and control.

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?

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... If you read the entire Law of Moses carefully (consisting of about 634 commandments all told), you would learn that God not only recognized this distinction but made provision in his Law for how Israelites would have to deal with killings in their land that were not the result of premeditated murder.

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

Originally Posted by boxcar

I apologize if my last post offended you. I wasn't trying to be flippant but rather just to the point, as I like to cut to the chase whenever I can. Everyone loves doing what is right in their own eyes, and naturally we think that whatever we do or whatever we approve of others doing is "good". (None of us like us likes to think of ourselves as being a bad apple.) Today, we call this philosophy Moral Relativism, which by the way is a thoroughly self-defeating philosophy and is old as dirt itself.

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.