Marx and Buddhism
- This topic has 58 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Friars are different from monks in that they are called to live the evangelical counsels (vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience) in service to society, rather than through cloistered asceticism and devotion. Whereas monks live in a self-sufficient community, friars work among laypeople and are supported by donations or other charitable support. A monk or nun makes their vows and commits to a particular community in a particular place. Friars commit to a community spread across a wider geographical area known as a province, and so they will typically move around, spending time in different houses of the community within their province.
I would advise caution in too readily identifying with early Christians as “revolutionaries.”
The primitive Christianism was an anti-slavery movement composed of the poor peoples of Rome and the plebeians. ISIS and Al Qaeda are not anti-slavery movements, and both are reactionary religious conceptions, and there is no comparison, equality, or similarity with the primitive Christians. ISIS began as a remanent of the Iraq army. The primitive Christians they do not support the state, the emperors and the Roman militarism
Celsum , a vicious pagan critic of Christianity from circa 180AD, makes it clear that the constituency of Christianity was;
“….foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children….”
Thus;
BOOK III.
CHAP. XLIX.
This statement also is untrue, that it [as Celsum says] is “only foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts.” Such indeed does the Gospel invite, in order to make them better; but it invites also others……….
It is a theme that runs through Celsum’s critique of Christianity.
Eg Jesus was low born ,bastard child of a prostitute, former economic migrant [in his youth spent in Egypt] and his mother a common weaver etc etc.
It would be peculiar for an ideology, eg Martin Luther King, to desire to attract the oppressed by endorsing the oppression?
Again the contemporary Celsum, from circa 170 AD, fully affirms the historical Jesus, even physically describing him according to his sources as a ‘dwarf’, physically deformed in some way or another and looking like a ‘criminal’.
The Christian Origen responded that he his was aware of stuff about Jesus being a ‘dwarf’.
But felt he wasn’t in a position to contradict it.
Origin seems to ignore the physically deformed stuff but pointed out that according to prophesy he would be no oil painting and would not look like Robert Powell.
And that he didn’t look like a criminal.
Celsus, not Celsum, which is the accusative.
Origen wrote a condemnatory essay. Celsus’ original has been pieced together from this.
I like Celsus’ critique of the Christians’ anthropocentrism (shared by many socialists). He writes that if the other animals are here for us, as the Christians maintain, then when a lion eats a man, it must mean that we are here to feed lions!
The Christians, I meant, approximate ISIS etc., because they were religious fanatics and anti-intellectual.
They resembled today’s anti-intellectualist movement among the working class. Devotees of flat earthism, anti-evolutionism, populism, religious fundamentalism. Watch the film AGORA, about Hypatia, and Carl Sagan’s account in COSMOS.
The Christians threw us back a thousand years through their destruction.
Robbo has already set forth the facts. More was not a monk, so there you go.
>
> You need maybe to spend less time seeking internet “information” and more time reading books.All kind of immediate and erroneous stuff is on the internet. It’s fast and skimmable and gives the illusion of knowledge without much substance.
People need to return to books and take their time.Jesus is simply a form of Joshua, a highly popular name, and there must have been many Joshuas among the Zealots, from whom sprang the Christians. There is no evidence for any specific Joshua as the original of the Christians’ Jesus.
Again, with regard to Christian origins, you seem to be relying on internet pseudo-histories rather than proper history books.
I recommend Kautsky’s FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIANITY and Gibbon’s DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
<i>D</i>ave B,
I wouldn’t try to apply criteria and terms of today to a very different society. “Mainstream media”, “left”, “right”, etc., associate you in my mind with modern conspiracism.
Royal autocracy was to develop later in western Europe. Feudal princes in the Languedoc protected the Cathars, in spite of themselves being Catholics.
Nation-states did not exist.
You are applying modern terminology where it doesn’t fit.
Christianity, Marcos, was not an anti-slavery movement, but a millenarian cult. St. John Chrysostom, who you call a “leftist”, had no problem with slavery, and neither did his contemporaries. (Interestingly, he forbade Christians from working for wages!)
Christianity, Marcos, was not an anti-slavery movement, but a millenarian cult. St. John Chrysostom, who you call a “leftist”, had no problem with slavery, and neither did his contemporaries. (Interestingly, he forbade Christians from working for wages!)
I don’t think you know the real history of primitive christians. You are just citing personality of the Catholic Church which is the negation of it. You need t do more research before making any affirmation. I know what I am talking about
As regards Celsum and Celsus and the nominative and accusative in Latin.
I actually did Latin at o’level and got a grade A in it.
It is a superior language as it avoids ambiguities as it is clear from the word ending who is doing what to whom.
So much so that you can place the word and verb order in any way you want without loosing clarity.
It is like classical Greek apparent, which is why the intellectuals used to use to use them and Germans could read stuff the English had written.
I have read Contra Celsum from beginning to end ; it is a big book.
I think I introduced Kautsky’s stuff on it on this Forum a few years ago.
I don’t remember taking ;
“….I like Celsus’ critique of the Christians’ anthropocentrism (shared by many socialists). He writes that if the other animals are here for us, as the Christians maintain, then when a lion eats a man, it must mean that we are here to feed lions!……”
from it, but that is not to say it wasn’t there.
In that period even the more respectable intellectuals, Plato or Aristotle?, had strange ideas on animals. One of them thought birds [ that were actually migrating] were metamorphosing into something or other I don’t know frogs maybe?
To explain their periodic disappearance.
In the Epistle of Barnabas which advocates communism and understands exploitation of the labourers; it says weasels have oral sex and therefore you shouldn’t eat them.
But that stuff was common then.
I have no interest in defending that late Christian .
On Chrysostom’s on slaves as in homily of 1st Corinthians thing.
However there is stuff in here really about workers, out of surplus value, creating and pandering to the consumption fund of the ruling class?
“….So, why do you have many servants? Since as in our case we ought to follow only our need, and in our table, so also in our servants. What is the necessity then? None at all; for, in fact, one master only needs to employ one servant; or rather two or three masters one servant. But if this is too difficult, consider those that have none and enjoy more prompt attendance. For God has made people in such a way that they can take care of themselves, or rather even their neighbour. And if you do not believe it, hear Paul saying, “These hands ministered to my necessities, and to them that were with me” [Acts 20:34]. After that he, the teacher of the world and worthy of heaven, did not care to serve many others. Do you then not consider it shameful to have whole herds of slaves, not knowing that this truly is what most of all brings shame upon you? Did God not provide to us then both hands and feet for this reason that we might not stand in need of servants? Since the class of slaves is not there due to necessity, for otherwise even Adam would have had a slave formed for him, but it is the result of sin and the punishment of disobedience. But when Christ came, He put an end also to this.
For in Christ Jesus there is neither slave nor free [Gal. 3:28]. Therefore, it is not necessary to have a slave. And if it is at all necessary, let it be about one only, or at the most two. What is the use of swarms of slaves? For as the sellers of sheep and the slave-dealers, so do the rich among us take their round, in the baths and in the forum.
However, I will not be too exact. We will allow you to keep a second servant. But if you collect too many, you do not do it for the sake of basic human need, but in self-indulgence. Therefore, if it is in their aid, I ask you not to assign any of them in ministering to yourself, but when you have purchased them and have taught them trades whereby to support themselves, let them go free. But when you threaten them, when you put them in chains, it is no more a work of philanthropy. …”
John Chrysostom on The Rich and The Poor”
From Homily XXXIV on I Corinthians 13: 8
A 4<sup>th</sup> century proto revolutionary two class [city] analysis ???
And that thou mayest see it more clearly, let us suppose, if it seem good, two cities, the one of rich only, but the other of poor; and neither in that of the rich let there be any poor man, nor in that of the poor any rich; but let us purge out both thoroughly, and see which will be the more able to support itself. For if we find that of the poor able, it is evident that the rich will more stand in need of them.
Now then, in that city of the affluent there will be no manufacturer, no builder, no carpenter, no shoe-maker, no baker, no husbandman , no brazier, no rope-maker, nor any other such trade. For who among the rich would ever choose to follow these crafts, seeing that the very men who take them in hand, when they become rich, endure no longer the discomfort caused by these works? How then shall this our city stand? “The rich,” it is replied, “giving money, will buy these things of the poor.” Well then, they will not be sufficient for themselves, their needing the others proves that. But how will they build houses? Will they purchase this too?
But the nature of things cannot admit this. Therefore they must needs invite the artificers thither, and destroy the law, which we made at first when we were founding the city. For you remember, that we said, “let there be no poor man within it.” But, lo, necessity, even against our will, hath invited and brought them in. Whence it is evident that it is impossible without poor for a city to subsist: since if the city were to continue refusing to admit any of these, it will be no longer a city but will perish. Plainly then it will not support itself, unless it shall collect the poor as a kind of preservers, to be within itself.
But let us look also upon the city of the poor, whether this too will be in a like needy condition, on being deprived of the rich. And first let us in our discourse thoroughly clear the nature of riches, and point them out plainly.
What then may riches be? Gold, and silver, and precious stones, and garments silken, purple, and embroidered with gold. Now then that we have seen what riches are, let us drive them away from our city of the poor: and if we are to make it purely a city of poor persons, let not any gold appear there, no not in a dream, nor garments of such quality; and if you will, neither silver, nor vessels of silver. What then?
Because of this will that city and its concerns live in want, tell me? Not at all. For suppose first there should be need to build; one does not want gold and silver and pearls, but skill, and hands, and hands not of any kind, but such as are become callous, and fingers hardened, and great strength, and wood, and stones: suppose again one would weave a garment, neither here have we need of gold and silver, but, as before, of hands and skill, and women to work.
And what if one require husbandry, and digging the ground? Is it rich men who are wanted, or poor? It is evident to every one, poor. And when iron too is to be wrought, or any such thing to be done, this is the race of men whereof we most stand in need. What respect then remains wherein we may stand in need of the rich? except the thing required be, to pull down this city. For should that sort of people make an entrance, and these philosophers, for (for I call them philosophers, who seek after nothing superfluous,) should fall to desiring gold and jewels, giving themselves up to idleness and luxury; they will ruin everything from that day forward.
https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/john_chrysostom_on_rich_and_poor.htm
Paul was a member or related to the Herodían family, and he was not a Jew, he was Roman and Syrian . He was a Jew proselyte, they were not looking for him because he was a Christian, they were looking for him because he was related to the Herodían family. He distorted the primitive conception of the Christians
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.