Religion or Economy
- This topic has 26 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You could be right. Now you mention it, a comrade from a Jewish background did once tell me that when the end came all Jews would be resurrected and live in paradise irrespective of what sort of lives they had led. Clearly, such a doctrine would not be an effective way of controlling people's behaviour. Hence the need for the sanction that, if you didn't follow the religion's precepts, your descendants would suffer till the 3rd or 4th generations.My view was based on what the Bible New Testament and the Koran say some Jews held. The Sadducees, mentioned in the New Testament, didn't belief in resuurection or life after death, at least not according to this:
Quote:The Sadducees thought of themselves as "conservatives," as the Old Believers. This is because they accepted only the written Law of Moses as authoritative and rejected subsequent revelation. As a result, the Sadducees denied many of the doctrines held by the Pharisees and by Jesus, including the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels and spirits, and the meting out of rewards and punishment after death. These beliefs were thought by the Sadducees to be Zoroastrian corruptions of the authentic faith of Israel.The article does go on to explain that the Sadducees died out after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD and that modern Judaism is descended from the Pharisees (who did believe all this nonsense).Mohammed also believed this nonsense about the resurrection of the dead but, according to the Koran, this was not well received by some:
Quote:[6:29] They say (subconsciously), "We live only this life; we will not be resurrected."[23:37] "We only live this life – we live and die – and we will never be resurrected."[44:34] The present generations say,[44:35] "We only die the first death; we will never be resurrected!"These sceptics are believed to have been Jews (rather than Greek philosophers or socialist materialists). Needless to say, Mohammed said they would rot in hell:
Quote:[13:5] If you ever wonder, the real wonder is their saying: "After we turn into dust, do we get recreated anew?" These are the ones who have disbelieved in their Lord. These are the ones who have incurred shackles around their necks. These are the ones who have incurred Hell, wherein they abide forever.[17:97] Whomever God guides is the truly guided one. And whomever He sends astray, you will never find for them any lords and masters beside Him. We will summon them on the Day of Resurrection forcibly; blind, dumb, and deaf. Their destination is Hell; whenever it cools down, we will increase their fire.[17:98] Such is their just retribution, since they rejected our revelations. They said, "After we turn into bones and fragments, do we get resurrected into a new creation?"Presumably that's our fate too, even after being beheaded.
Perhaps this article might provoke further debatehttp://www.alternet.org/belief/scientific-journal-tries-prove-belief-innate-and-fails
Adam, I think we are both touching on elements of the truth on the Judaic aspect of the afterlife. I also found a lot of stuff about the differing views on this matter between the Sadducees and Pharisees. I read somewhere about an explanation regarding the Sadducees conservative view of concern only for the life in "the here and now", being as a result of the Exodus from Egypt. The idea is that because the Egyptians were so focused on an afterlife, it was decided by Moses, presumably with a nod from god, that it best to down play the importance of the idea. of an afterlife. I also came across stuff that told of degrees of reward in the Judaic afterlife, based on performance in this one.The evolution of religion is fascinating stuff.
It is an interesting article Alan. I think such claims have been made before, as I'm sure I heard about something like this a few years back.If it turned out to be the case, then atheists are simply in denial for the sake of it.Damn it, never really gave much thought to that before, gonna have to check.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Perhaps this article might provoke further debatehttp://www.alternet.org/belief/scientific-journal-tries-prove-belief-innate-and-failsI like this sentence:'Humans continue to evolve and the processes that brought about our superstitious nature may no longer serve a purpose.'
ALB wrote:I think the argument that religion is a racket set up by priests for their own economic benefit is simplistic. Certainly some priests do well out of it (the cardinals and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church and the bishops of the Anglican church for instance and many priesthoods in the past) but I don't think we can say that this is what religion is all about. I think Marx got it right in his early atheistic writings that religion is also the cry of the opressed, the heart of a heartless world (or is it the hope of a hopeless world?), the opium of the people and that, therefore, the criticism of religion should lead on to the criticism of the social and economic conditions that give rise to the need for religion, i.e the heartless, hopeless world where the oppressed need it as a drug to cope with their misery and oppression.This is the correct view on religion
Vin Maratty wrote:Would capitalism be fine without religion or does it still depend on it? It certainly comes in handy to blame conflicts on. The middle east is not about capitalism it is about religion etc. There is also the argument that there is 'evil' in the world. Many on the 'left' 'centre' and 'right' blame 'evil' rather than capitalism: Maybe they need to get rid of the 'religious' idea that it is evil bankers, politicians and capitalists behind the world's miseries.The countries of Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union were governed by capitalists who were atheists.The left and right are always creating and inventing conspiracy theories, it is part of their inability to explain the problems that we are facing in our world, that is also the reason why man created religion
To what extent socialism is similar to Islamic economic system? Was Marx influenced by Islam or by Hegel?
baloch wrote:To what extent socialism is similar to Islamic economic system? Was Marx influenced by Islam or by Hegel?There is not any similarity between socialism and Islam, and there is not any similarly with any other religion at all. Probably, you are referring to the so called Arab socialism which has nothing to do with socialism either, it is just a bourgeois nationalist trendIslam is not an economical system, it is a religion which came from Judaism. Most Islamic live under the ideological influence of the capitalist societyMarx was not influenced by Islam at all, even more he said that human beings will not free themselves as Judaic, Islamic, or Christian, but as human beingHe was influenced by Hegel when he was pretty young, but he distanced himself from Hegel in many aspects, probably he was more influence by Feuerbach than by Hegel, and he also distanced himself from him.Hegel was an idealist and Marx was a materialist.
Article on Islam as non-socialist and pro-capitalist here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2005/no-1214-october-2005/islam-and-socialismSome modern currency cranks like Islam because of its supposed opposition to interest (supposed, because it's all hypocrisy as Islam accepts interest under another name).http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2009/no-1257-may-2009/cooking-books-1-theology-interestOn the other hand it is true that there's nothing of interest is Islam.
There are a bunch of reformist left wingers, and imbeciles propagating the idea that Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity are communist trends, and that Islam is an anti-imperialist movement, The new anti-imperialist trend is going to be ISIS, a product of the Western capitalistsThat is the reason why the Americans Trotskyite were supporting Saddam Hussein when the war against Iraq startedI have seen pictures of Jesus, Simon Bolivar , Marx and Engels together, pretty soon, we are going to see a picture of Mohammad as part of the socialist theory. The new socialist icon is the new pope, because he is defending the poor, they do not understand that the new pope is just a salesman of the Vatican trying to get more poor in order to empty their pockets completely. He is just any drug dealer working for a religious cartel.The so called liberation theory, it is not related to socialism or communism either, the members of that political trends must also free themselves as human being, but not as religious peoples.They are just Catholics without the influence of the Vatican, like its founder: Camilo Torres, who was a Jesuit father, and he became a guerrilla fighter, he was killed, and the economical exploitation of the working class has continued until our dayshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilo_Torres_Restrepo This is a complete distortion of what socialism is, How socialism and Catholicism can be associated ?I do not know what sources are they using, or probably, they must be reading comics books. No wonder why socialism-communism have not advanced one day, or one second, with the Bolshevik-Leninists and left wingers.Islam is just another reactionary, backward, an anti-socialist ideological trend, and it is part of the capitalist society
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.