Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
No, that’s not it. When there are so many posts and the page is due to turn, posts are swallowed and don’t appear.
Try again, but alter a word or two, so it doesn’t register as “identical post.”
I know it’s all state capitalism, but I don’t think Castro honoured Stalin. He liked Trotsky.
Only China, N. Korea and Albania honoured Stalin.
I don’t think China under Mao even mentioned Cuba, except as a Krushchev satellite, and hence “revisionist” state.
https://images.app.goo.gl/m1R3RvHEy7oCGaRV6
Libraries: books out, guns in.
” This book shows that all religion had a materialistic origin and most religion came or were related to a specific economic system.”
****
Not denying that.
****
” do not believe that individuals make history, the economic reality of that time made history, and that religion was becoming the ideological vehicle of the rulers of that time, and it became the opposite of the original christian, even more, Engels described them similar to a working class movement.”
****
Not denying that either. But the superstructure not only reflects the base, it also influences changes in it, because ideas, which come from material reality, are also part of that reality and influence its progress.
Careful when using the word ‘depart’ from. You mean ‘comes from.’
To English readers it sounds like we ‘never left’ Lenin Stalin and Mao! But I know you mean we have never been with them.” Paul distorted the original principles of the primitive christians, it should be called Paulism, he was the real founder of the Catholic Church which is the negation of the Roman primitive christians, and the economic base of catholicism was Feudalism.”
*****
Too simplistic. I agree that Paul was the founder of what would become the Athanasian Church, but that triumphant Church was created in the East, where all the doctrinal matters were fought over and hammered out, and it was a slave-owning society, not a feudal one.
Rome was just one bishopric, called papacy because of its size, not because of any special precedence. All the Churches formed the Catholic Church, but it wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church, which didn’t exist until 1054, when the Bishop of Rome (Pope) broke away from the others.By that time feudalism was the system in western Europe, and the Roman Church, in isolation for a long time from the Asian Churches, was accommodated to it. (Saxon England and the Celtic churches were not subject to Rome – the latter separate since the 7th century, and the English having lapsed from communion with Rome and holding communion with the East).
1066 and William Bastard brought both feudalism to England and also the papal mandate to re-establish submission to Rome.*****
” There is not any citation in the Bible indicating that the followers of Jesus cannot be married, or cannot have a woman, according to the Bible the apostles were married. ”
True, but Paul states that those who cannot live unmarried had better marry rather than live in sin, but that it is better not to be married at all.
I have no wish to defend Paul nor to say he wasn’t probably a lecher. I’m just saying that his words were used to legitimise the power, later on, of monastic clergy over secular.
Yes, he would have been a liar, and a hater of love, life and beauty. Joachim Kahl calls him a “neurotic philistine.” But Paul won. And so did his follower Athanasius of Alexandria, the leader of the Pauline sect which became Orthodox Christianity, and all later trinitarian Christianity.
*****
In Switzerland today one sees friars followed by their women and children, at a distance, and whom they cannot acknowledge – or so I was told by a German theology student.
Whether it was genuine or not is irrelevant.
The point is that celibacy, and assumed virginity, was idolised, as long as it went hand in hand with monastic vows.
And the real reason for this was that, with only monks being enthroned as bishops, the power was retained by the monastic clergy.
This is still the case (protestants excepted). The most a married priest can become is an archpriest.
In the Roman Church celibacy for all clergy began to be enforced in the 11th century, but still, secular (non-monastic) priests would mostly remain barred from the higher clergy.The idea that celibacy was superior to married life had begun in the Hellenist world and was inherited by the Church (and is stressed by St. Paul, who says marriage is a condescension to those too weak to remain virgins – and hence unworthy of higher things).
For a time, I believe, it was a toss-up between which would triumph: Christianity or Mithraism.
Tendencies now typical of classic Christianity were already growing within Hellenism (“paganism”), such as the valuing of celibacy and virginity as superior to marriage.
The anti-Christian Emperor Julian chose celibacy after once being married. He was a neo-Platonist, which was extremely popular among the ruling class. Hellenists had their own “Jesus”, the wandering preacher Apollonius of Tyana, who visited India.When Christians were fighting among themselves and different Christian factions alternately had control of the state, celibacy ensured ecclesiastical power, since only monks could become bishops. This was betimes enforced by violence, and monks would invade the towns to punish the secular clergy’s recalcitrance.
