Religion

79 posts / 0 new
Last post
Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Mar 7 2007 09:15

Yeah, and on the few occasions when the inmates got the upper hand, all these scum were wiped out. They weren't following the teachings of Lord Jesus, tch, tch!

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Mar 7 2007 09:50
Swede wrote:
I would rather argue for the inmates of the death camps trying to unite with the lower rank soldiers of the SS against the officers and stop the holocaust from happening by setting up a new, freer, society where everyone are equal, german and jew alike.

Sorry to have to break it to you, but this is fucking mental.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Mar 7 2007 09:58
Swede wrote:
Yes, the holocaust and world war two is a tricky question. Of course I don't believe in mass suicide as the solution, I would rather argue for the inmates of the death camps trying to unite with the lower rank soldiers of the SS against the officers and stop the holocaust from happening by setting up a new, freer, society where everyone are equal, german and jew alike.

LSD is not a breakfast cereal.

Sam's picture
Sam
Offline
Joined: 1-11-06
Mar 7 2007 10:37
Quote:
The state doesn't rely upon religion as a means towards oppression anymore

I'd like to hear you say that to the females in Iran who got executed because they were raped, while the person who did it only gets 50 lashes. I don't know the ins and outs of the bible (why would i want to?) but in practice, it is about as desirable as maoism. These religious texts, have been the justification for racism, sexism, class inequality, declaring bloody wars on other countries in the interest of capital, the rejection of self knowledge, and the repression of any artistic or sexual expression which maybe considered "sinful", unless its a catholic priest sexually abusing children. You might say that this is some bad misinterpretation of the holy book. Whatever the case, I do not think there'll be any good interpretation. How the hell could i base my thoughts on what some mushroom taking nutters wrote thousands of years ago? And have little chance of being able to change them? I guess it can be argued that some political ideologies are like that, and some especially on the left are in danger of falling into that trap, they fail to change when capitalism has changed, but that is another dicussion entirely, and besides which, i must catch the bus. Its all a little quick that last bit, but i hope people get what i am saying here.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Mar 7 2007 10:57
thugarchist wrote:
LSD is not a breakfast cereal.

You owe me a new keyboard, I just spat coffee all over this one grin

_Arwen_
Offline
Joined: 4-03-07
Mar 7 2007 11:14
Swede wrote:
Yes, the holocaust and world war two is a tricky question. Of course I don't believe in mass suicide as the solution, I would rather argue for the inmates of the death camps trying to unite with the lower rank soldiers of the SS against the officers and stop the holocaust from happening by setting up a new, freer, society where everyone are equal, german and jew alike.

How can anyone really expect to understand the holocaust? I mean my great uncle was killed in a death camp and the stories that i've heard from that time are so hurendous i would never repeat them to anyone.
Whats more this type of thing keeps happening, most recently (that i am aware of) in Darfur. And of course during ww2 their was the case of Von Stauffenberg, the german general and one of Hitlers closest men, who was so shocked when he discovered what was happening to the jews that he decided to plant a bomb in Hitlers office and gathered the resistance, but the effort failed because of an oak table! And Von Stauffenberg was killed by fireing squad- would history have been so much worse if they'd succeded? Surely the best thing that could possible have happened would have been for the tyrant to have been brought down by revolution? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_20_Plot I guess maybe the nation of isreal would not have been reunited and after over 1000 years it takes something bloody big to do that, but whatever came out if it that was even remotely possitive - what a cost!

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Mar 7 2007 11:31
_Arwen_ wrote:
I guess maybe the nation of isreal would not have been reunited and after over 1000 years it takes something bloody big to do that, but whatever came out if it that was even remotely possitive - what a cost!

There are quite a few people, Palestinians and others (e.g. myself), who would contest even that remote positivity, you know.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Mar 7 2007 11:36
revol68 wrote:
can we ban these nutters.

That's strange, coming from one who manages to evoke such antagonism in others.

I'm against banning people in general, unless they really make it very hard to have good discussions, or if they happen to hail from Great Spamalot. These individuals don't fall into those criteria. Why do you want to ban them, though?

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Mar 7 2007 11:54
revol68 wrote:
Regarding my antagonism, since when did libertarian communism become about ettiquette and not politics?

Libertarian communism may be about politics, but online forums, indeed, any social context, online or offline, has a lot to do with etiquette.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Mar 7 2007 12:12
revol68 wrote:
the general etiquette on online forums is one i'm pretty much in keeping with, I just happen to be better at flaming than others, so they whinge.

How do you measure success at flaming?

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Mar 7 2007 12:18
revol68 wrote:
tojiah wrote:
How do you measure success at flaming?

how much it provokes pathetic whining from the Last Men.

Last Men? Qu'est-ce que c'est?

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Mar 7 2007 12:34
revol68 wrote:
the opposite of ubermensch. And stop using french it's a poofs language. ;)

Well, I have to make myself seem superior somehow. Would you rather I used Hebrew or Arabic? מה זה ("ma ze") or شو هذا ("shu hada")? Or does using a Semitic tongue make me even poofier?

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Mar 7 2007 12:51

Is Revol un salaud? Or perhaps un trou de cul? or mebbe ein scheisskopf?

_Arwen_
Offline
Joined: 4-03-07
Mar 7 2007 13:41

How about erhalten Sie unten auf Ihren Knien und küssen Sie meinen Arsch für Verzeihen

-not that i actually mean that wink

jack_spratt's picture
jack_spratt
Offline
Joined: 8-03-07
Mar 8 2007 01:30

Look, this has reduced itself to childish nonsense.

It seems to me that:

1. Alot of people in the world are religious. Combined, those religous people have the potential to wield alot of power.

2. By making no comment regarding afed's policy regarding religion, support from radical religous organisations (of which there are many) remains a possibility

3. By categorically stating that religion is the enemy of afed, afed loses a lot of potential support, and gains a alot of potential enemies, ridicule, etc. etc..

Therefore afed has little to lose and alot to gain by making no comment regarding religious matters. Whether God exists or not is completely irrelevant, but the fact is that organisations such as the Jesuits are powerful, rich, long reaching, and are involved with many similar struggles as afed (to give one example of a potential beneficiary afed can lose).

PS If you guys are going to argue about God, you'd get a lot further if you did so in a mature and progressive way IMO.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Mar 8 2007 10:28
jack_spratt wrote:
2. By making no comment regarding afed's policy regarding religion, support from radical religous organisations (of which there are many) remains a possibility

Which radical religious organizations are you referring to? Name "many" that aren't fundamentalist, subscribing to such "radical" ideas as women staying at home, serving their husbands, and having as many babies as possible. Oh, I'm well aware of Rabbis for Human Rights, for example, but they are a very rare exception - most "radical" religious organizations are more akin to Hezbollah or Kach.

jack_spratt wrote:
... organisations such as the Jesuits are powerful, rich, long reaching, and are involved with many similar struggles as afed (to give one example of a potential beneficiary afed can lose).

Yeah, but I mean, why stop there? I'm sure that if AFed lay off its whole class-struggle bollocks it could hook up with the Tories, who are also rich and long-reaching, and whose members also breath oxygen, just like class-struggle anarchists!

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Mar 8 2007 10:39

Really looking forward to getting those funds from the Jesuits, as soon as we drop "the religion clause".
Where do these weirdos come from????

_Arwen_
Offline
Joined: 4-03-07
Mar 8 2007 12:47

When you start messing with peoples core beliefs you're asking for trouble. It also begs the question- how exactly do you intend to prevent people forming religous groups? Start a propaganda campain against them 'they rape babies!' , and then put them in prison, or line them up and shoot them? - these have always been the traditional methods!?

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Mar 8 2007 12:52

At last some common sense on this thread.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Mar 8 2007 12:53

No. We create a society based on equality, fairness and decency. Then their stupid ideas can't fuck everything up for everyone else.

_Arwen_
Offline
Joined: 4-03-07
Mar 8 2007 13:02

And you are going to stop them meeting up by doing ... what exactly?
Bearing in mind that their are millions of religious people nationally and billions internationally

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Mar 8 2007 13:15
_Arwen_ wrote:
And you are going to stop them meeting up by doing ... what exactly?

You're fucking mental, do you realise that?

Nobody. Said. Anything. About. Stopping. Relgious. People. Meeting. Up.

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Mar 8 2007 13:17

Plus if they're all in one place already, it'll save rounding them up. smile

_Arwen_
Offline
Joined: 4-03-07
Mar 8 2007 13:41

I didn't meen meeting up as in 'just getting together', i meant forming groups and getting ideas- sometimes good sometimes bad. You know, organised religion. Yeah i don't agree with everything that people come up with in such settings, but it's inevitable, the koran for example, gives strict instructions, i don't like them, i don't agree with them, but however much i hate doctrine etc. i don't see how anyone can stop it without infringing on peoples rights even more so than the average religous group?

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Mar 8 2007 14:05
_Arwen_ wrote:
I didn't meen meeting up as in 'just getting together', i meant forming groups and getting ideas- sometimes good sometimes bad. You know, organised religion. Yeah i don't agree with everything that people come up with in such settings, but it's inevitable, the koran for example, gives strict instructions, i don't like them, i don't agree with them, but however much i hate doctrine etc. i don't see how anyone can stop it without infringing on peoples rights even more so than the average religous group?

Yes, but that's because you're a fucking loon who can't understand the difference between saying you're opposed to something and wanting to round everybody up who does it and shoot them.

_Arwen_
Offline
Joined: 4-03-07
Mar 8 2007 14:21

Thanks, it seems it's okay for atheist to say that religion has been used to justify rape, murder, paedophilia or whatever - thats not 'mental'. All i asked was what was supposed to happen, wether that means 'we don't like it, but they have right', or what? Is that not a valid question?

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Mar 8 2007 17:03
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
Thanks, it seems it's okay for atheist to say that religion has been used to justify rape, murder, paedophilia or whatever - thats not 'mental'

but it clearly has!

So have "non-religious" ideologies.

Regardless, this discussion is going nowhere, mostly because _Arwen_ isn't really talking to anyone on this thread.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Mar 8 2007 17:47
revol68 wrote:
yes and i oppose them too. Can you however think of non religious ideologies that have mass appeal and whose historical writings/ founding text encourage and celebrate such reactionary ideas?

Liberalism? Fascism?

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Mar 8 2007 18:31
revol68 wrote:
Mind you I did word thatv badly as I meant to point out that we oppose those ideologies too, so why should religious crap get off the hook?

Because they go to people's core beliefs, of course. We should never contest people's core beliefs. roll eyes I'm with you on this one, revol, but, mind you, it's not the supernatural nonsense that bothers me, it's the practical implications.

_Arwen_
Offline
Joined: 4-03-07
Mar 8 2007 21:05
tojiah wrote:
Regardless, this discussion is going nowhere, mostly because _Arwen_ isn't really talking to anyone on this thread.

You may be right, but i don't really know what to say to anyone. I just don't think that religion by definition or more specifically christianity does support things such as femail oppression and persecution from my own experiences, but it's hard for me to explain that without sounding like a bible-waving maniak. I think it's important to contest ideas and beliefs, so i suppose i shouldn't really mind accusations like that, if people are willing to think about things in an open minded way