I don't think you can be Marxist and Christian.
Marxists resent their place, and want to improve their fate, and the fate of all others.
Christians accept their place, and the place of all others.
Marxists are secularists, and see religious life as opium.
Christians believe in the other world, and see the pleasures of this life as distractions.
Marxists don't believe there should be a separation of belief and the state. They are one-kingdom thinkers.
Christians believe in a separation of church and state, and are two-kingdom thinkers.
Marxists put the Party at the center of life.
Christians put the Family at the center of life.
Can one be a Christian and a Marxist?
Can one really serve two masters?
Satan resented his position and fate, and wanted to be equal to Christ.
Christ accepted his position and fate, including the Crucifixion.
Marxist thought traces back 150 years to Germany. Marx himself hated many other classes, and said that his rival Ferdinand La Salle had "the dirty blood of a Negro Jew."
Jesus was a Jew, and said that there was such a thing as a Good Samaritan. He never denounced anyone on the basis of their bloodline. Christianity traces back 2000 years to the Gospels and to the life that is recorded in them.
On the cultural level, Marxists believe that art should illustrate and support the theories of the Party, or else the artist should be banished or killed.
In Christian circles, art is considered adiaphora, and is a realm in which the freedom of inquiry granted to all believers is paramount.
Marxism is based on hatred of worldly inequality, while Christianity accepts worldly inequality, but posits an otherworldly equality in which the coinage is the soul.
If one were to make a Venn diagram, I don't see where the two overlap at all except in the ELCA's Bishop Hanson where they are more or less identical and the calendar never changes past the year 1968 AD.
21 comments:
Christians put Christ at the center of their life.
And two-kingdoms as you describe it is untenable to be polite.
GM wrote,
Christians put Christ at the center of their life.
Exactly right. And while we like to think comfortable thoughts that today, there's no real conflict between being Christ-centered and family-centered, there is. Wait until your kids decide that they've had enough of Church. Oh, they believe and all, they just don't want to give up Sunday mornings.
And two-kingdoms as you describe it is untenable to be polite.
I agree, but the phrase as you describe it is necessary to secure that agreement :-).
I meant that the family is the central SOCIAL institution for Christians (marriage being the primary organization, it being the only superlapsarian order).
I was watching a documentary, not the first to state this, which suggests a a genocidal tendency within the logic of the Rapture amongst evangelicals. The non-believers will perish in flames and tidal waves of blood, or something to that effect. I'm not sure of the veracity of this claim but it does make me view Christians differently. It's hard for me to respect a bunch of people that want my demise so that Jesus will come and take them, apparently to a cloud hovering above the earth. It also seems rather hokey, far-fetched and downright weird.
Tom, fear-mongering is not the exclusive domain of the far right, right?
Can you find a title, a director, a company, and tell us on which channel you saw this?
It hink that would explain most of what you saw.
It might also help to know in which city (which demon-graphic) saw this film.
Tom,
So all Democrats are Communists,
all Muslims are Terrorists,
all Jews are Cheats,
and all Blacks are Lazy,
right?
Because you seem to be enamored of painting at least one group by the stripes of its fringe.
Oh sure it was on Netflix, seems to be a theater release documentary. There wasn't really any fear-mongering on the part of the director as the movie was all in the words of evangelicals. It's called Waiting for Argmegeddon by Kate Davis:
Synopsis: America's 50-million strong Evangelical community is convinced that the world's future is foretold in Biblical prophecy - from the Rapture to the Battle of Armageddon. This astonishing documentary explores their world - in their homes, at conferences, and on a wide-ranging tour of Israel. By interweaving Christian, Zionist, Jewish and critical perspectives along with telling archival materials, the filmmakers probe the politically powerful - and potentially explosive - alliance between Evangelical Christians and Israel...an alliance that may set the stage for what one prominent Evangelical leader calls "World War III."
Guys,
FWIW, the desire within certain evangelical circles to establish the preconditions for Armageddon, and with it the second coming, is generally known. Let me recommend Barbara Rossing's book "The Rapture Exposed." Or just go to the source, e.g.,
Rapture Ready
So that part of the argument Tom has right.
But GM is exactly right in objecting that these are marginal views within Christianity writ large. And it's not as if the rest of Christianity is somehow giving tacit approval to those views, as much of the contemporary criticism is based on the work of mainline Protestant theologians like Rossing.
I suspect that these are minority views even within the Evangelical movement. Biblical literalism does not entail accepting the theoretical artifice known as "Christian Zionism."
GM
According to Kirby all socialism leads to the Khmer Rouge. I was merely pointing out that the same can be said of Christianity, when people bend it and twist it to fit their own delusional mania. There are elements of Marxism that can lead to camps and there are elements of Christianity that suggest a certain preoccupation with genocide as well. Accusing me of being "enamored of painting at least one group by the stripes of its fringe" is quite ironic on this blog, which typically renders anyone that doesn't act in Randian self-interest as a violent Communist. I guess Randian could mean Ayn Rand or Rand Paul at this point!
what if political schizophrenia is
the evolutionary mutation necessry for the continuation of the species
?
Hilarious. A person cites a Bible passage to justify their polytheistic logical fallacy.
There is but ONE Allah Kirby and his name isn't Christ. Peace be upon the prophet and messenger of Allah whose name was Isa and who will testify against your type of blindness and logical fallacy, may Allah be pleased with him for that.
Meg,
Christians do not understand themselves to be polytheistic. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches us that there is one God, who is known to Christians in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The God you know as Allah corresponds to the person of the Father in Christian theology, and to Judaism's Yahweh. But what of the other two persons? Are they not distinct Gods? No.
Characteristics that I believe are shared by Yahweh/Father/Allah are those of creator and law-giver. There is also a sense of distance, and a very selective involvement with human affairs. Few, be they Jews, Christians, or Muslims, perceive themselves as having had a personal encounter with Yahweh/Father/Allah. Instead, we look to our scriptures, some of which we share, for insight into this distant God and his will for us.
But a distinctive feature of the Christian faith is the sense of a more personal and more continuous encounter with God, through the persons of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. In Jesus, we have a person of God whom we can more easily relate to, and which we refer to as Lord. In the Holy Spirit, we have a person of God who works directly through us, changing our hearts, and inspiring each of us to do his will. In our theology, the prophets (both old and new) were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
But this comes back to the Trinitarian point. These three distinct persons are not distinct Gods, but one God.
It is hubris for any of us, irrespective of our faith, to claim that we understand God. At best, each of us has a partial understanding, as befits finite creatures trying to comprehend the infinite being of God. Each of us, be we Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, believes that our particular understanding, flawed though it may be, is still somehow "better" or "more right" than the others, and there is a tendency to want to draw the line of God's mercy for him so that it includes us and ours, and excludes the others. Certainly, I see you and Kirby as being far more alike than different in this regard.
But the line of God's mercy does not belong to us, it belongs to God, praised be his name, however we know it.
God's wrath is also going to hit certain denominations. It's not all love, love, love.
It's also hate, hate, hate.
And there will be fires of perdition.
We have tow arn people aboiut this, Meg.
There are going to be giant hottubs, but the tubs won't be like the ones in California!
Lakes of boiling fires for all the liberals in our midst!
They can't say I didn't warn them!
Kirby,
Lakes of boiling fires for all the liberals in our midst!
Did God tell you this? Or are you projecting your own hopes through him?
I trust to God's love and mercy, and as much as I believe your political beliefs are in many ways mistaken, I do not hope, nor do I believe, that by believing in them you've consigned yourself to eternal suffering in lakes of fire.
What I do believe is that we are saved because through God's grace we trust in his promises to us. One of those promises (Mark 16:16, HCSB) is "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." That is a promise in which I trust, which I believe applies to me, and in which I find no political litmus test. So, do you believe God lied when he said "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved"? Because scripture says that I'm saved, yet you say that I'm damned.
And you claim that liberals won't suffer contradiction. At least we don't consign our political opponents to hell.
You were teasing me first, by aligning me with Meg, who is fairly strict with her beliefs, and cannot imagine that she could be wrong.
I think you share THAT trait with her.
I think I am generally wrong on large issues, and yet, feel that the ten commandments offer a good guide for the lost.
I don't know how well the Muslims do on the Ten Commandments. Don't they have too many wives in order to avoid the one concerning adultery?
I get confused. I'm just a provincial Lutheran.
But I'll take a gamble with Luther and stick to his interpretation of events for the most part, while leaving the Jews out of it (Luther's notion that the Jews were bad doesn't accord with what I know about faithful Jews).
I don't consider you an opponent. Something more like a chess partner.
by the way, I threw you a bone in last night's post -- how to define a robot. Does a ventilation device that swivels on an axis (house fan) qualify as a robot?
Please respond up there, ok?
As for the afterlife, who knows?
I don't think everybody can go to heaven. That's universalist, and I think it's too icky to consider.
I think there are other criteria beside baptism and belief.
You also have to follow the Ten Commandments. And you have to help your immediate community follow the Ten Commandments.
It's not something you can just do on your own.
But let's deal with something more specific: what is the simplest possible definition of a robot? Does a swiveling house-fan qualify.
I told Julian you might respond, and we've been waiting for your answer.
Kirby,
You were teasing me first, by aligning me with Meg, who is fairly strict with her beliefs, and cannot imagine that she could be wrong.
True about the teasing, but really I was (and am) trying to make a point to Meg here, not to you. I think it is the case that each of us sees people who don't agree with us as being inflexible, unreasonable, etc. After all, they don't agree with us, and we're reasonable. But the truth is that both of you are sticking to hard positions, as if the religious commitments each of you hold is perfectly in accord with God's will. My there here is that while our religions are inspired by God, mankind has had plenty of opportunity to screw it up, and we all have logs in our eyes. I'll admit to having mine, but also that it's a curious thing that our own logs are often invisible to us.
Here's a model of my thinking. Let's suppose that there are a thousand doctrinal issues, and three positions possible for each, only one of which is correct. We'll say that religion X dominates religion Y if, for all of these thousand questions, whenever Y holds the correct position, then X does also. In my heart, I think it is unlikely that any of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam dominates any of the others in this sense. Acting as if they do is based on hubris, and this never ends well.
I don't know how well the Muslims do on the Ten Commandments.
Islam accepts the Hebrew Scriptures as divinely inspired, and I believe that they do pretty well.
Don't they have too many wives in order to avoid the one concerning adultery?
Polygamy was also practiced in ancient Israel, c.f., Solomon had his wives and even concubines, and this was not deemed at the time as being adulterous. Adulterous liasons are those that occur when one of the partners is bound to another.
I don't consider you an opponent. Something more like a chess partner.
Fair enough, point taken. Although I'm pretty competitive, and the guy sitting across the table was always in my mind an opponent, if only for the purpose of the game.
I don't think everybody can go to heaven. That's universalist, and I think it's too icky to consider.
I think there are other criteria beside baptism and belief.
I don't know who gets in. But the Bible does say that baptism and belief are enough. Now there are also Biblical warrants for the notion that belief without change (metanoia) is not what is meant here. Belief does not consist of a mere intellectual assent to certain philosophical positions, but rather it is a life that is re-ordered in light of relationship with God.
I'll take up the challenge of robots in the proper thread...
I don't know where Meg is on this right now, but in the past on her blog she has made strong assertions to the point that the Jews should be pushed out of Israel into th sea.
I admit I'm 110% with Israel, evenif most Jews in this country are on the left.
I don't care, I'm still with the Jews, because they are Democratic, and have a high literacy rate, even among the women.
Plus, they're funny.
Without them, this country would be far poorer from the humor viewpoint, which means a lot to me.
Worldwide, I think this is a failing for Islam.
At any rate, when they talk, I don't see humor as their major area of interest. In fact, they seem to put a damper on it, especially when there are certain cartoons...
Kirby,
I don't know where Meg is on this right now, but in the past on her blog she has made strong assertions to the point that the Jews should be pushed out of Israel into th sea.
She seems to be doing drive-by commenting, which makes any sort of meaningful engagement difficult. I do hope she picks up the thread again, though.
And I do understand Arab (if not greater Muslim) anger at Israel. The establishment of the modern state of Israel served to address one problem of justice, but it created another injustice in so doing. Moreover, the Palestinians whose land and property was taken from them were not parties to the injustice against the Jews.
You credit Israel with being democratic, but this is only so to a limited degree. Israel does not offer citizenship to Palestinians who still reside in Israel, even though it was their country first. Yes, Israel is a democracy, but it is and intends to remain a democracy dominated by ethnic Jews. This tendency is stronger when the Likud party is in power, as it is now, and when Netanyahu is Prime Minister, as he is now. A truly democratic state of Israel would provide citizenship and equal protection under its laws to the Palestinians who
I admit I'm 110% with Israel, evenif most Jews in this country are on the left.
I'm 100% on the side of justice, which is to say, on God's side. I believe that both Muslim and Jew, Arab and Ashkenazi, have a new for justice, and to be treated justly. Throwing the Jews into the sea isn't just, but neither is the encirclement and de facto siege of Palestinian communities by Israel.
Plus, they're funny.
Without them, this country would be far poorer from the humor viewpoint, which means a lot to me.
American Jewish humor is particularly accessible to us. Arab-American humor is newer, and not so well established. And we're not particularly attuned to hear its voice. But I have heard good jokes that originated in Muslim lands, the sort of cynical, biting things against those in power that you'd expect.
Worldwide, I think this is a failing for Islam.
I'm skeptical. I think that anger and fanaticism often exclude humor, and there is no denying that there are a lot of angry Muslims, and quite a few fanatical ones. But you're mistaking visibility and notoriety for numbers, which seems pretty unsubtle.
At any rate, when they talk, I don't see humor as their major area of interest. In fact, they seem to put a damper on it, especially when there are certain cartoons...
We don't react well to cartoons that insult or demean us, let alone cartoons that seem sacrilegious. I dare say that cartoonish depictions of the torture and murder of US soldiers would make us pretty angry. Let alone cartoonish mocking of Jesus. And remember, you who doubts whether the devotees of Islam, a religion centered on the law, follow the ten commandments, that Islam has strong prohibitions against the artistic depiction of anything living, as a violation of the 1st commandment, which they take much more literally and seriously than we do.
At any rate, when they talk, I don't see humor as their major area of interest. In fact, they seem to put a damper on it, especially when there are certain cartoons...
Hmm. Something to search for. How about these:
The Vatican's New Era
Sixty years of the Nakba
That wasn't hard. I suspect these are tip of the iceberg -- I just looked for "cartoons" on the English Al-Jazeera site.
It seems to me that the issue isn't a lack of humor on their part, so much as a lack of curiosity on your's.
I couldn't get some of your cartoons to load. Wanted to see Goodbye Hillary, Hello Obama, but it didn't load.
This one about Buddhists and the Olympic Games, did load.
I can't see that it was uproarious, but it had a certain solemn gaiety to it, what:
http://english.aljazeera.net/cartoons/2008/04/200861517358725161.html
Kirby,
I couldn't get some of your cartoons to load. Wanted to see Goodbye Hillary, Hello Obama, but it didn't load.
Yeah, these are Flash based, and a bit skanky besides. I suspect a server-capacity issue. I have troubles too, and sometimes can get through them by just reloading the page a few times.
I thought the conventions in the cartoon you posted were interesting, and worthy of further analysis.
Note the general scruffiness of the soldier, and how he transitions from respective "Please" to swearing. Note how Bush is speechifying, but not actually saying anything until he agrees to go home (and is subsequently abandoned by the soldier). Note how Bush, in his silent speechifying, is unaware that he is sinking until he is up to his neck in quicksand. Note, and I think this is particularly interesting, that the cartoon ends before Bush sinks under the quicksand, with his nose still above the surface. So his death is alluded to, but not actually depicted. This is great technique (c,f,, Scott McCloud's analyses), but I wonder if a typical American comic would have so circumspect.
I'm sorry, but what gets kept in an economics system? If we were to be purely capitalist, why would we ever support the poor? It is perfectly find to be Marxist and Christian, both at the same time, while maintaining a religious background above all others.
In Acts 2, Communism is referenced as the system that the apostles and their new followers were using to survive in a dark world. This describes the economic system of Marxism. Each contributed what they were able to, and each took according to their need.
Separation of church and state shouldn't be necessary, as a nation-state could be Christ-centric and function perfectly. Therefore, a single kingdom perspective, as you call it, should be fully functional.
Marxism many times does follow the principles of Christianity. It helps the poor, and allows for greater equality amongst humanity. In a communist state where all countries and people contributed equally, we would have no crises. While this is Biblically impossible, Marxism -- on a smaller scale -- is very much a reality.
Being upset with your surroundings isn't necessarily wrong. Without people being upset with their surroundings, William Wilberforce would never have set the end of the British slave trade in motion. Without great thinkers planning a greater system, we would never get anywhere towards a better society. The Marxist discontentment is merely what drives us, rather than human greed.
Assuming that I am not to late to insert my two cents into the Armageddon discussion, there does, from an outside view, appear to be a little bit of a nightmare surrounding the rapture. Certainly, it would appear to be a blood lust almost to some. However, what is in there is, within reason, able to be carried out by any people group, and could -- quite easily -- be inflicted by ourselves. The affects of a nuclear winter, which could be brought about by a nuclear war, would easily block out our sun and moon, and a bit of colouring wouldn't necessarily be unheard of. Therefore, I am not so unwilling to say that many of the judgements will be humanly carried out.
Post a Comment