First of all, I do not want to be put in the same group as Ayn Rand, or
annyone else for that matter, because only of my atheism. Friedrich Nietzche, Karl Marx, Ludwig Feuerbach, Ayn Rand, Jean-Paul Sartre, Vladimir Iljitj Lenin - all were anti-Christian, but would you say that makes them a consistent group? A Nietzche claiming all power must go to das Ubermensch which is able to enforce his power over others, a Karl Marx stating all power must go to the oppressed masses, a Feuerbach stating that "religion is man's attempt to make himself divine" and a Nietzche claiming "religion is an attempt to destroy man's own power" is a consistent group? In that case, I think you seem to need extremely few arguments to call something consistent.The Bible is what it is interpreted to. That is why I said the Bible is not aligned with any of those two political blocks, and that it makes little sense to call it Capitalist or communist. There is nothing contradictory in pointing out that parts of it can be used to defend the system after such a statement, if I was to make a contradiction I should start talking about Communist pilgrims and the like. I believe parts of the bible can be used (and has been used) to defend any political system to date, from feudalism over capitalism to communism. I just find it meaningless to say that the Bible 'predicts' or 'forbids' any of those systems, how could a book written centuries before their existence possibly do that?
It is correct that Jesus did not teach us to be religious. Religion has existed in any human society so far, also before Jesus and in societies with no connection to the Christian world. But, my friend, I cannot see why you find that the Bible is eternal truth because all men do not agree, of course we do not. The fact that we don't agree is something perfectly healthy and shows that humans are ultimately individual beings. You say that Bible believers are skeptical at man's ways, but do you think they are the only ones who are? You referred to me as a "communist chap", and I too find some of "man's ways" today appalling on many points. Look in my post "Capitalism and its negation" and you will find my reasons for that. And as for "parroting the party line", socialists disagree too and not always within the definition of their party. And what is most to parrot between being a socialist in a capitalist world or being Christian in a Christian world? 92 % of Denmark are christened, confirmed and members of the National Church. I, one of those poor lost souls condemned to always blindly agree, made the decision that I would not be one of all those for the reason that I wish to take the responsibility over my own life rather than living life according to a millenia-old book. For that I was excluded socially from my class at school, made unpopular within parts of my family and mocked by teachers. I do not believe I fall under the category of people who "blindly agree" and follow the good sheep. I believe that any sort of blind agreeing is unhealthy, be it agreeing blindly with Rand, Adam Smith, Lenin, Trotskij, Buddha or Jesus. Again, look to the last part of "Capitalism and its negation" and see what I feel about -isms, repeating here would be redundant. I am against ANY 'prophet', be it Trotskij, Ayn Rand or Jesus. Some of my thinking might overlap with Trotskij, some maybe even Jesus, but that does not make me Christian or Trotskist. I feel that it is important for any person to develop a healthy thinking to question ANY philosophy he hears. Being a "communist chap" does not make me agree with any socialist word I hear (as you might have seen, me, Zeus and S.D.Fassbinder have had our disagreements on some points), it more reflects that I agree with more of socialism than I does of capitalism. Following -isms is often pointless, as we all have our own opinions, the only valid -isms we two could put on ourselves were Mitrocsakism and Kongshojism, but that would be rather ridiculous, wouldn't it?
Yes, communist "great leaders" and capitalist entertainers have reached religious worshipping status, but do you seriously believe any modern socialist wishes Lenin-mausoleums, Stalin cult and Mao's little red to replace the bible? I for one don't. Oh, and I never said modern religion is 'state-run' propaganda, it is very much independently run propaganda now that Church and political bodies are differentiated. One thing I would like to ask you is how would you exactly have the 'Grace of God' cleanse churches? God has never to my knowledge done anything by himself, so would you have a person empowered by the grace of God cleanse the churches?
With the John Lennon quote, I was not pointing to a source of intellectual guiding, using him as a prophet to follow would be as stupid as following anything blindly. I used the quote to underline what another person has said on a subject overlapping this, not because I "parrot" him. I also find it curious you state that man wouldn't know what is right without the ten commandments. Eskimo tribes on Greenland did not know the concepts of "murder" or "theft" before Christian colonists colonized Greenland. That is right, they did not have one myth in which a thief or a murderer played any part, and did not even have a word for any of those. Their society, where nobody and nothing could be spared, was one where theft and murder was unthinkable - and they did not have the Ten Commandments or anything in their religion stating "thou shalt not kill/steal". Nobody stole or killed, if two disagreed enough to enter a feud, they settled it by the "drum dance", an ardous ritual which could take hours, sometimes days, of dancing, taunting and drumming until the first passed out from exhaustion, whereafter he (the loser) would be nursed back to health. This happened in a non-Christian society, but when they got colonization, what happened? They indulged in murder and theft like the rest of the World.
I believe that man is by nature neutral. Man is not inherently evil or inherently good, man has the freedom and potential for being good as well as the potential for being evil. Which potential we use is up to ourselves through the course of our lives. When we choose the potential that can be judged as evil, it is usually because of personal gain. When we select good, some do that for personal gain too (the Christians, for example, believing God will reward them for it). Others do it because they realize that man is not so bad at all and must - for his own sake, not for reward - do good. Some do good because they follow commandments or the thesis that they must do upon others what they wish to be done upon themselves, others do it because they simply within themselves know what is right and have the insight to follow that.
Finally, I should like to point out that I am not attempting to convert you to atheism. I accept that people are different and this difference is desirable. Otherwise, no discussion and debate would be possible, and what a grey world that would be. Therefore, I should like to request that you do not attempt to convert me to Christianity either. Your prayers are falling upon deaf ears, I have defined what I am as a human being sovereign in my own life (wherefore I cannot believe in a God). You stop attempting to convert me, and this discussion will be better. You have presented rational arguments which I have taken to heart, and if I do the same to you, we have both benefited from this. But simply competing in a contest of praying on one side and destroying crosses on the other would get us nowhere.
-Simon Weber Kongshoj
"Freedom is insight in necessity"
- Jean-Paul Sartre
PS: I am *NOT* using Sartre as intellectual guidance here either, my
friend. His quote just seems to sum up some of my ethics. Others smell more of Marx, others more of Kant - but the only person my opinions match entirely is my humble self.
