Does Christianity have socialist overtones? When I was young, communists were the bad guys, who were atheists, so the idea was that you should be the opposite of that, namely, Christians and supporters of capitalism. But do Christianity and capitalism go together?
This is from a book by Page Smith entitled Rediscovering Christianity.
"It is the main purpose of this work to demonstrate what should never have been in question, namely, that Christianity has always been resistant to capitalism, to the "spirit of capitalism," to capitalism in whatever form it presented itself."
This a link to an essay in Sojourners called "When American Christians were Socialists."
111 comments:
I'm not sure whether it's wise to link Christianity with any political and/or economic system. It coexisted with feudalism for centuries, as well as with monarchies, democracies, and (believe it or not) fascism, Western European socialism, and with communes, such as the Old Believers and Doukhobors in Canada. (For a wonderful cinematic portrayal of Canadian communal Christianity, see the 1941 British film The 49th Parallel). The Amish certainly have a unique economic system that is definitely neither capitalism nor socialism. The agrarian economy of our own American "Bible Belt" could hardly be described as capitalism until the 1960s, with the industrialization of the South.
It seems the only system that has demonstrated itself to be unambiguously antithetical and incompatible with Christianity is Marxist/Leninist atheistic Communism and its contemporary successors (e.g., China and North Korea).
While they were often dismissed as utopian, Christian socialists and others believed that capitalism was a passing phase of human history.
I think this is misstated. They weren't dismissed as utopian, they claimed they were utopian, just like all the other American experiments in socialism.
The difference between early attempts at American socialism and Marxist theories is that the American experimenters thought they would be successful and that would naturally convert nations to socialism. However, they all failed. So Marxists decided that they would just forcefully convert entire nations. However, they all failed.
They all failed for the same reason. The basic theory is that man can be perfected if socialistic communities are achieved. Christ never made any such promise.
The agrarian economy of our own American "Bible Belt" could hardly be described as capitalism until the 1960s, with the industrialization of the South.
I disagree. Prices for goods produced on farms were always related to the supply. Each farmer planted his crop, worked his land and either sold his crop at harvest or stored it until the price went up.
it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God
If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.
I wonder if Trump was thinking such things when he held the Bible up as a prop? Well, to be fair, Christians generally do not take Jesus all that seriously, that would be rather inconvenient. It's much more fun to just do whatever you feel like, then in the end pull out your get out of jail free card, ask for forgiveness, and you are pearly gates bound.
There are a lot of things Jesus did not do, such as getting rich, for example. What do you suppose the odds are that a vow of poverty will be a plank in the Republican platform?
Stardusty,
Pulling a single line out of scripture and building a theology from it is always a dangerous business, and generally fails. Yes, there are a hundred (if not more) verses in the Bible which warn of the (very real) dangers of riches, but nowhere are they as such condemned. Being rich is not a sin. What is (or at least could be) sinful is what you might do (or not do) with your riches.
Joseph of Arimathea (the man who buried Jesus) was a rich man, yet he was also a disciple of Christ. Lydia, a woman who aided Paul in Acts Chapter 16 was a "seller of purple goods", which in the 1st Century were considered luxury items. She was either borderline "rich" or (to use an anachronistic term) upper middle class. In Luke Chapter 8, Joanna is described as being what we today would consider to be a financial backer of Jesus and the 12 Apostles, and so was undoubtedly rich for the times. Mary, the sister of Lazarus, in John Chapter 12 poured a jar of ointment said to be worth a year's wages over Christ's head. The family of Lazarus was definitely rich. All of these persons were neither praised nor condemned for being rich, and were all disciples of Christ.
So a vow of poverty, while being admirable, praiseworthy, and to be recommended, is not required of Christians. What is required is justice, mercy, and charity.
Oh, and by the way. Trump's holding up the Bible (which he has undoubtedly never read) for a photo op was blasphemy, pure and simple.
Well. What a pleasant surprise.
We at least got 3 comments into a discussion of historical American socialism before Orange Man Bad became the topic. People must have been sleepy last night.
I felt it necessary to get that in, lest Stardusty get the erroneous idea that I was somehow defending the false Christianity that Trump both champions and represents. I am a sworn enemy of the prosperity gospel and any form of pseudo-Christianity that embraces white supremacy and/or Darwinian Capitalism.
So has Trump now replaced Hitler as the unmentionable name in internet conversations? If so, that's quite appropriate and fitting.
So has Trump now replaced Hitler as the unmentionable name in internet conversations?
Far from it apparently. How's the weather today in Baltimore?
Is it possibly Orange Man Bad? It's Orange Man Mean here.
It is definitely Orange Man hot and humid today. All praise to anyone braving this MAGA weather to get out and protest. It's worse than pepper spray and flash grenades out there right now!
An Orange Man Mean system is moving into my area. We're expecting partly Covid with a chance of riots.
Not to worry. They'll all be blown away by the coming Blue Tsunami.
So you expect it to be raining fat cats and yellow capitalist dogs soon then.
Well, it's hard to predict the weather, even for a Weatherman.
Meanwhile per the original topic.
Dorothy Day's farm communes failed for the same reason all the other socialist communes failed. First, no one knew how to farm and second no one understood human nature.
Dorothy Day was most definitely NOT a socialist, and neither were her agrarian communities. Their organizing principle was Distributism.
1st paragraph of the article:
Developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, distributism was based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931). It views both capitalism and socialism as equally flawed and exploitative, and it favors economic mechanisms such as cooperatives and member-owned mutual organizations as well as small businesses, and large-scale antitrust regulations.
I know that Day claimed it was an attempt at Distributism but from what I've been reading it looked more like an attempt to build Benedictine-like monastic communes (without the Benedictine's charism) than enact Distributism.
Distributism is centered on family units owning and working their own land and supporting themselves. Her communes were not owned by or even occupied by families and they were not even self-supporting. Since she knew nothing about how to run a farm and did not realize that running a farm like a socialist commune was nothing like how Benedictines operated she failed just like all the other socialist agrarian communes.
Being a New York City girl she probably thought that, like Mayor Bloomberg, any idiot could farm.
Her sister Doris was much better at philosophy. Que sera, sera! ;-)
"Being a New York City girl"
Well.. sorta. Staten Island, although technically in NYC, was in the 1930s hardly "urban". There were dairy farms there back then, and Dorothy Day lived in a part of the borough where you'd have to shout to be heard by your nearest neighbor.
That explains how she knew what a cow was. But the vast majority of farms were/are not dairy farms even though cows were raised for milk and for meat on farms.
What is required is justice, mercy, and charity.
I'm a Catholic, so I recognize along with the Church, the following virtues:
The 3 Theological Virtues are: Faith, Hope and Love.
The 4 Cardinal Virtues are: Prudence, Courage, Temperance and Justice
"Orange man good" = Trump Derangement Syndrom
SDS on display.
And no, it's not the radical 60's group.
"Orange man good" = Trump Derangement Syndrome
Proof of the adage that even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
bmiller,
Well, Justice and Charity (a.k.a., Love) are explicitly listed amongst the 7 virtues. "Mercy" is implicit in all 7 of them. As St. Thomas Aquinas stated, "Mercy is God's greatest attribute."
Starhopper,
It seems to me that you, or at least whoever is influencing you just makes things up as they go along. Do you find Catholicism too rigid or confining?
"Do you find Catholicism too rigid or confining?"
Both, and neither.
Which is strong evidence that I'm on the right track.
From the link to Sojourners:
In accordance with Sojourners’ mission to articulate the biblical call to social justice:
We affirm the biblical truth of every human being's inherent dignity and worth, as all people are created in the image of God. (Genesis 1:27)
We affirm that in the Body of Christ there is no distinction or hierarchy according to racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, or social identity and economic status. (Galatians 3:28)
Which version of the Bible is being used by Sojourners?
Here's the text of Galatians 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The only correlation I can see is possibly gender. But I'm not sure what that even means today June 6th 2020 to Sojourners. So maybe slavery is OK as well as religious discrimination? Looks a lot like the 7 commandments
Which is strong evidence that I'm on the right track.
I find it strong evidence that you're giving yourself permission to just make things up as you go along. Thanks for confirming you're doing it of your own free will.
June 6th 2020 Sorry, June 10th, 2020. My time machine is on the fritz.
"My time machine is on the fritz."
As well as so much else.
Whatever, I'm off to bed now. Til tomorrow...
Starhopper
"Pulling a single line out of scripture and building a theology from it is always a dangerous business, and generally fails. "
So "Thou shalt not kill" generally fails, after all, it is just an isolated quote, as is "love your enemy", and "what god has put together let no man put asunder".
You sound like a homosexual desperately bending and cherry picking the Word to rationalize your life of sin.
Jesus told you how to be perfect, you are just to greedy and prideful and selfish and sinful to heed his admonition. Undoubtedly you have the gangster attitude, blatantly live a life of willful disobedience, then in the end play the universal get out of jail free card, just ask for forgiveness before you die and St. Peter is gonna give you the thumbs up.
Ah, but the gate to hell is wide and most pass through it, while the gate to heaven is narrow and few enter, because Jesus knows the true heart of the gangster and knows he lies in his heart.
Nope, Jesus showed you the way, live a life of service and sacrifice to others, give away what you own and what you earn so that others less fortunate should benefit from your sincere altruism.
Indeed you are called by Jesus to vote socialist.
bmiller said...
Which version of the Bible is being used by Sojourners?
Here's the text of Galatians 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The only correlation I can see is possibly gender. But I'm not sure what that even means today June 6th 2020 to Sojourners. So maybe slavery is OK as well as religious discrimination? Looks a lot like the 7 commandments
Jew/Gentile is a racial and an ethnic distinction, and slave/free is an economic status decision.
More to the point, do you think the list in Gal. 3:28 is intended to be exhaustive?
Stardusty,
You know NOTHING about me, so I will forgive your ignorant attacks.
Although I am undoubtedly a fool for doing so, like Paul in 2nd Corinthians I will now defend myself.
I live a life of radical simplicity. I own a single "luxury" item, which is my telescope. Other than that, I own nothing other than my Toyota, my clothes, my books, this cheap Chrome Book (120 dollars), and a radio. I do not own any property, live in a one room apartment, and have zero investments. I give one third of my monthly income away. I am the sole financial support for two Togolese school children, and have been for years. Eleven years ago, I was the unexpected beneficiary of a half million dollar life insurance policy from a relative. I gave every cent of it away - all of it. (I rather think she expected me to.)
Yes, I have not taken any vow of poverty, but I have not been called to. Voluntary poverty is a gift, not an obligation. Those who have blessed with it are the happiest people I know. Involuntary poverty, on the other hand, is a curse and a great evil.
I do not know what "willful disobedience" you are referring to, other than the omnipresent sinful nature to which we are all subject, so I have no way to respond to such a baseless accusation.
My answer to you was not to claim that I myself am rich (which I am definitely not), but to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with being rich. What matters is what you do with your wealth.
Does Christian Socialism have it's roots in Pelagian teachings?
. In the year 414, St. Augustine found it necessary to refute a heretical writer known as the Sicilian Briton, who was teaching, according to Hilarius, a perplexed Sicilian Christian, that “a rich man who continues to live rich cannot enter the kingdom of heaven unless he sells all that he has, and that it cannot do him any good to keep the commandments while keeping his riches.”
St. Augustine’s counterblast was crisp and unhesitating: after reminding his correspondent of the riches of the Hebrew Patriarchs, he launches straight into a discussion of the parable of Dives and Lazarus. If Dives had shown mercy to the poor man, he would himself have deserved mercy:
"And if the poor man’s merit had been his poverty, not his goodness, he surely would not have been carried by angels into the bosom of Abraham who had been rich in this life. This is intended to show us that on the one hand it was not poverty itself that was divinely honored, nor, on the other, riches that were condemned, but that the godliness of the one and the ungodliness of the other had their own consequences, and, as the torment of fire was the lot of the ungodly rich man, so the bosom of the rich Abraham received the godly poor man. Although Abraham lived as a rich man, he held his riches … lightly…"
bmiller,
I wish I could "like" your latest comment.
Starhopper,
The article is worth reading too.
From the Sicilian Briton to whom Augustine was arguing with:
They do not understand that the reason why the poor exist is that the rich own too much. Abolish the rich and you will have no more poor. If no one has more than he needs, then everyone will have as much as he needs. For it is the few rich who are the cause of the many poor.
That sounds familiar to me.
What I've seen abused over the years as some sort of prooftext for socialism or collectivism is the example of the early believers in Acts. The key difference between there and socialism/collectivism today is that there it was voluntary and being united in a common cause (perhaps the greatest common cause possible --- testifying to the risen Lord).
Today, of course, I cannot opt out if 51% of people or legislators vote to confiscate my wealth or the fruits of my labors.
Allow me to make myself perfectly clear here.
It is better to be (voluntarily) poor than it is to be rich.
It is better to live simply, than ostentatiously.
It is better to be self sufficient (assuming you are healthy, etc.) than it is to rely on others.
Having less possessions is generally better than having more.
Consumption for the sake of the economy is a great evil. Buy only what you need.
The best things in life aren't things.
Jesus: "It is better to give than to receive."
Envy of the rich is still envy (and a sin - in fact, one of the deadly ones).
The wealthy will be judged more harshly than the poor. (The more you have, the greater your responsibility.)
Being rich gives you greater opportunity to be charitable. Being powerful gives you greater opportunity to be just. Being in authority gives you greater opportunity to show mercy. (But God help you if you fail at these.)
We will all (each and every one of us) be called to account as to how we used those material things given to us in this life. They are all gifts from God. After all, "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the LORD of hosts." (Haggai 2:8)
Ideas of Heretical Christian Sects that never really went away.
The Christian Middle Ages and Gnosis
Christianity regards creation as good. All bad and evil has its sole origin in man’s disobedience towards God and man’s turning away from God. Man cannot redeem himself from the calamitous situation in which he has been since his falling away from God, not even by a collective effort of united humanity as a whole. The Christian concept of humanity is therefore not particularly optimistic. The only foundation on which human confidence and hope can be based, is Jesus Christ, the incarnate son of God, in whom God became man. Only the individual can make the conversion and turning to Christ for himself. Nevertheless, this individual conversion also has an impact on family, society and the state and leads to a Christian culture in which everything is placed under the kingdom of Jesus Christ.
The gnosis, on the other hand, regards man as basically good. Everything bad and evil results only from the circumstances under which man lives. Ultimately, it results from the fact that the material world—as Marcion (85-160) teaches—emerged from the creation of an evil demiurge (namely Yahweh). Good and evil are—according to Manichaeism—equally original principles that were separate in the beginning. They are mixed in the present time and must be separated again in the future. Accomplishing this is man’s task. Man can thus liberate himself from his disastrous situation by means of a collective effort, through which he overcomes everything material on the path of self-abandonment and spiritualization, thus creating an ideal social situation within the world and history.
Since the twelfth century, this political aspect of gnosis has been associated with an optimism regarding progress that derives from the three-realm doctrine of the heretic Cistercian abbot Joachim of Fiore (1130-1202). He divided world history into three periods or realms, each representing one of the persons of the Trinity: The realm of the Father covers the time of the Old Testament; the realm of the Son covers the time of the apostles and the Church until Joachim’ present time; and the realm of the Holy Spirit, that whose dawn Joachim announces for the year 1260. This third realm or “Third Reich” will offer the joys of the Celestial Jerusalem, and the social order of this realm is not unlike the political ideas of the gnostics.7
Knox wrote about the similarity between movements today and ancient Christian Heresies in Enthusiasm. If you're familiar with the past, you can recognize some of these ideas that keep cropping up.
Starhopper,
It is better to be (voluntarily) poor than it is to be rich.
...
Having less possessions is generally better than having more.
Consumption for the sake of the economy is a great evil. Buy only what you need.
This is simply not biblical and contradicts what you said before. It is better to love and serve God than not regardless of being rich or poor. As you mentioned above:
Mary, the sister of Lazarus, in John Chapter 12 poured a jar of ointment said to be worth a year's wages over Christ's head. The family of Lazarus was definitely rich. All of these persons were neither praised nor condemned for being rich, and were all disciples of Christ.
I would rather call it a-biblical rather than non-biblical. I contradicts nothing in Scripture, and it is doubtful that it could be found in Scripture.
But, being Catholics, we're not constrained by sola scriptura, right?
Also, I'm not "praising" a person for not being rich. I simply mean that it is better for one to not be so. Being rich is dangerous, it can lead to many temptations, it can distract one from what is truly important in life, one is liable to a harsher judgement if one is rich, it can all too easily become a false idol (is there any other kind?), riches can be the "weeds that choke the Word of God" that Christ warned us of in the parable of the sower.
But yes, being rich in and of itself is a matter for neither praise nor condemnation.
Starhopper,
I would rather call it a-biblical rather than non-biblical. I contradicts nothing in Scripture, and it is doubtful that it could be found in Scripture.
But, being Catholics, we're not constrained by sola scriptura, right?
I called it "not biblical" so aren't we saying the same thing? It's not part of Tradition either is it?
Also, I'm not "praising" a person for not being rich. I simply mean that it is better for one to not be so. Being rich is dangerous, it can lead to many temptations, it can distract one from what is truly important in life, one is liable to a harsher judgement if one is rich, it can all too easily become a false idol (is there any other kind?), riches can be the "weeds that choke the Word of God" that Christ warned us of in the parable of the sower.
I think all of us face temptations whether we're rich or not. I can vouch for that. If someone gets rich while doing good that just means that what he is doing is considered valuable unless proved otherwise. Just like I don't think poor people who are doing good are slothful unless proved otherwise.
I think we are in agreement here.
OK.
It's just that you spent an extraordinary number of words warning of the temptations of wealth. If only 1% of the people in the world are rich, then that seems most of us won't be faced with that temptation. It tends to distract people from focusing on their own sins and dealing with their own temptations. Who would want something like that to happen?
Starhopper,
" I do not own any property, live in a one room apartment, and have zero investments. I give one third of my monthly income away. "
So Jesus does call his followers to vote socialist, just like I said.
Surely you could consider voting for those money grubbing uber selfish Republicans, could you? Not that the Democrats are vastly better, but they do at least have some measure of decency, some socialist tendencies like Jesus and you.
Bernie was your guy then, right?
I wonder who would want something like that
Wow. That was weird.
In the midst of composing my joke, we get an interruption by a raving Megan.
Regan that is.
I don't normally like to reveal who I supported or voted for, but to prevent erroneous impressions, I was a Martin O'Malley supporter in 2016 and am a Biden supporter this time around. Not for a nanosecond did I ever support either Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders (though I did admire his ads).
Here. I will reveal my entire presidential voting record for all to see:
1972 - George McGovern
1976 - Gerald Ford
1980 - John Anderson
1984 - Ronald Reagan
1988 - Michael Dukakis
1992 - Bill Clinton
1996 - Bill Clinton
2000 - Al Gore
2004 - John Kerry
2008 - Barack Obama
2012 - Barack Obama
2016 - Hilary Clinton
2020 - Anybody but Trump
Wow again.
Starhopper did you not ever see The Exorcist? "Especially important is the warning to avoid conversation with the demon"
Pretty soon he will be telling you "Starhopper, Starhopper, why did you vote for Reagan?"
No, I have not seen The Exorcist, nor do I have any desire to do so.
I voted for Reagan as a single issue voter, and have regretted it ever since. Mondale was a life long opponent of NASA and the space program in general. He specifically promised to scrub the Space Shuttle and all planning for a space station. On the other hand, Reagan was a space enthusiast. The contrast was stark. On that single issue, I chose Reagan over Mondale.
This is largely why I am today so critical of the idea of single issue voting.
I'm surprised you didn't ask me about Ford. I was a huge fan of Ford, and still think he was (and is) greatly underappreciated. His pardon of Nixon was the right thing to do at the time. With one stroke of a pen, it put the entire Watergate Era behind us, and the country could move forward. Nixon instantly became an historical figure even while he was still alive, irrelevant to current events.
Maybe (for me) the saddest thing about subsequent American politics is that my 1976 vote for Ford was the last time ever that I voted, not for the lesser of two evils, but for someone I genuinely supported. Every last (presidential) vote since then has been cast either holding my nose or just plain resigned to facing a bad choice. (1980 comes to mind. I voted for Anderson because I so disliked what both parties were offering me.)
I didn't ask why you voted for anyone because it has nothing to do with the topic.
You may think it's kind to feed trolls but it really isn't.
"I didn't ask why you voted for anyone"
Huh? You specifically wrote, "Starhopper, Starhopper, why did you vote for Reagan?"
Geessh.
It was a link to a scene from The Exorcist and I was doing a parody of that. I suppose you didn't get why I was using the "Church Lady" either.
Oh well, not every joke is going to be a gem.
I couldn't tell that. Your link sent me to a blank page.
Really.
I just clicked it and it sent me to the scene where the demon is using the voice of Father Karras's mother. Spooky that the link didn't work for you.
My anti-virus software also blocks demons. Now it only it would block trolls...
Maybe your anti-virus software only blocks what demons don't want you to see :-O
I bet it blocks Fox News too.
Actually, I am a regular watcher of FOX News. As Sun Tsu advised 2500 years ago, "Know your enemy."
Right. To Cultists any news coming from the outside is by definition from the enemy.
I find it helpful to bounce from FOX to CNN and back.
oozzielionel,
Good for you. You get to hear takes from more than one side as well as news events that may not even be reported from a single source.
Having no television, I get all my news from:
NPR
YouTube clips from network and cable news programs
My online subscription to The Washington Post
The British newspaper The Guardian (which has no pay wall)
and Новости, a Russian Language news service.
Pretty well rounded.
Gnosticism today.
It has been said that whereas Conservatives think Leftists are wrong, Leftists think Conservatives are evil.
This is because Conservatives think the argument is about how the government should be run. It's not. For Leftists it really is about good and evil.
Opponents really are evil, maybe wittingly, but at least unwittingly. If someone cannot see that it is because they do not have the secret knowledge that they, the elect, have. Perhaps they never will.
Has anyone ever noticed how disagreeing with leftists immediately leads to a charge of being a racist? It's because today the outer ring of "secret knowledge" is Critical Race Theory:
Critical Race Theory…
1)believes racism is present in every aspect of life, every relationship, and every interaction and therefore has its advocates look for it everywhere
2)relies upon “interest convergence” (white people only give black people opportunities and freedoms when it is also in their own interests) and therefore doesn’t trust any attempt to make racism better
3) is against free societies and wants to dismantle them and replace them with something its advocates control
4)only treats race issues as “socially constructed groups,” so there are no individuals in Critical Race Theory
5)believes science, reason, and evidence are a “white” way of knowing and that storytelling and lived experience is a “black” alternative, which hurts everyone, especially black people
6)rejects all potential alternatives, like colorblindness, as forms of racism, making itself the only allowable game in town (which is totalitarian)
7)acts like anyone who disagrees with it must do so for racist and white supremacist reasons, even if those people are black (which is also totalitarian)
8)cannot be satisfied, so it becomes a kind of activist black hole that threatens to destroy everything it is introduced into
So agree with the narrative or you are the enemy (racist). Insisting on using reason is evil. If you don't see this you are blind to the secret knowledge and drinking racist Kool-aide.
Unique Pessimism of the Gnostics
The Gnostics, it is true, borrowed their terminology almost entirely from existing religions, but they only used it to illustrate their great idea of the essential evil of this present existence and the duty to escape it by the help of magic spells and a superhuman Saviour. Whatever they borrowed, this pessimism they did not borrow — not from Greek thought, which was a joyous acknowledgment of and homage to the beautiful and noble in this world, with a studied disregard of the element of sorrow; not from Egyptian thought, which did not allow its elaborate speculations on retribution and judgment in the netherworld to cast a gloom on this present existence, but considered the universe created or evolved under the presiding wisdom of Thoth; not from Iranian thought, which held to the absolute supremacy of Ahura Mazda and only allowed Ahriman a subordinate share in the creation, or rather counter-creation, of the world; not from Indian Brahminic thought, which was Pantheism pure and simple, or God dwelling in, nay identified with, the universe, rather than the Universe existing as the contradictory of God; not, lastly, from Semitic thought, for Semitic religions were strangely reticent as to the fate of the soul after death, and saw all practical wisdom in the worship of Baal, or Marduk, or Assur, or Hadad, that they might live long on this earth.
This utter pessimism, bemoaning the existence of the whole universe as a corruption and a calamity, with a feverish craving to be freed from the body of this death and a mad hope that, if we only knew, we could by some mystic words undo the cursed spell of this existence — this is the foundation of all Gnostic thought. It has the same parent-soil as Buddhism; but Buddhism is ethical, it endeavours to obtain its end by the extinction of all desire; Gnosticism is pseudo-intellectual, and trusts exclusively to magical knowledge. Moreover, Gnosticism, placed in other historical surroundings, developed from the first on other lines than Buddhism.
Pessimism is a hallmark of the Left.
Starhopper,
Ok, I see you had a couple bad years back there in '74 and '88, but at least you went in the tax and spend direction most of the time, although you had a real serious lapse in judgement with the borrow and spend greed is good prototype, Reagan.
Reading down I don't see much in the way of socialist news sources though.
Jesus said to sell all your possessions and give them to the poor, so obviously Jesus wants you to start voting socialist. Maybe Bernie will try again or there will be a younger version to come along for you Jesus believers to vote for.
NPR on CHAZ
I've heard from other sources about someone named Raz in CHAZ. I can't find NPR reporting on this individual. Is it fake news that this person even exists?
This article raises an interesting question.
Darwin is praised by ant-Christians as delivering the final fatal blow to Christianity. He seems to be the #1 "saint" of atheism if you will.
But now in current age of Iconoclasm it seems the same type of people who only yesterday were gaslighting critics of Darwinism who pointed out his obvious racism, are today noticing what they ignored yesterday.
Will the atheist mob destroy his statues and burn his books?
I'll be watching to see who will stand to defend him against the mob. Pretty sure those people will be in the unemployment line and/or the hospital. It will also be interesting to see who will go along. I'm guessing it will be the biggest names in science.
bmiller said...
It has been said that whereas Conservatives think Leftists are wrong, Leftists think Conservatives are evil.
I read plenty of conservatives who liberals are evil. Vallicella, Feser, and the Diplomad are among my regular blog schedule. So, you're starting with a huge mischaracterization and demonization. How trustworthy do you think the rest of this article is going to be?
I could go through it line by line, but would it really matter (that is, would you read it to understand what I was saying, or just disagree)?
I am not a huge fan of sanitizing the past, or of judging people in past times by today's standards. American Slavery was and is objectively wrong, but that does not mean we have to condemn every slaveholder to the dustbin of history. We'd have to toss out Washington and Jefferson along with Jefferson Davis and Simon Legree. Racism is unquestionably a great evil, but if we refused to acknowledge otherwise great people who had views on race that wouldn't pass muster today, we'd have to never listen to Gustav Mahler again or recite the Gettysburg Address. (Mahler thought that black people were incapable of creating great music, and Lincoln wanted to deport the freed slaves "back" to Africa.)
I shudder to think what future generations will think of us. Will anyone who ever wore a pair of sneakers manufactured by child labor in Malaysia be condemned? Or how about how we blithely crunch on celery harvested by migrant laborers making 50 cents a day? There's a saying about people who live in glass houses...
I shudder to think what future generations will think of us.
If future generations become Christian again, which I do think will happen, then there's no need to worry.
So are you saying that future Christians will approve of child labor and non-living wages for agricultural workers?
So are you saying that future Christians will approve of child labor and non-living wages for agricultural workers?
No. I'm saying that future Christians will be reasonable in their view of history. Like not tearing down all Greek and Roman statues and burning all of their writings. Unlike those who now doing those things whether they claim they're Christians or not.
Your response seems to indicate an inclination toward Catharism.
Looks like Google removed Churchill's picture from "british prime ministers" search.
More Orange Man Good derangement syndrome.
I searched on british prime ministers in google images and got lots of pictures of Churchill.
That was over 70 years ago, and he was just one of many, you realize, don't you?
I'd add "not knowing how to Google" to Stardusty's list of ignorances, but adding 1 to infinity is still infinity.
Yet more Orange Man Good derangement, this time so separated from reality that the deranged individual does not realize something so basic as the fact that anybody can enter british prime ministers into google and they will get many pictures of Churchill.
The derangement is strong with this one.
I'm sorry you don't know how to use Google.
Everyone else in the world who enters that can see what I mean. But you did mention you used "Google Image" didn't you? Something I did not tell you to use? Just use a normal Google search like normal people would. I know that's asking a lot, but I wouldn't have to tell a normal person to poke around a little if they didn't find what I referenced in the first place.
For the Churchill controversy information challenged.
And then they came for Fawlty Tower.
Monty Python is next. Then they will come for you.
Churchill was undeniably in many ways a true son of a bitch. No less than Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (a true Christian, if there ever was one) devoted whole pages of his gulag Archipelago to debunking the "Great Man" image of the British Prime Minister.
But... despite his many very real and enormously consequential flaws, were it not for his words and actions in 1940, we could very well be living in a fascist world today, dominated by Germany and Japan. He deserves credit (and perhaps even a statue) for that.
He was a "Bald Man Bad"
"Just use a normal Google search like normal people would"
Yes, the Orange Man Good derangement is especially strong with this one.
Apparently "normal" people who want to find images do not search using google images.
Indeed, a deranged mind that considers it "abnormal" to search for images using google images. But, then, this is Orange Man Good derangement syndrome, it eats away at even the most basic of human reasoning.
I worked serving the public and also helping elderly people with technology.
Not everyone is capable of following directions and find it confusing when given instructions with something as "new-fangled" as Google searches. So I consider it just part of the job to ignore abuse from confused technically challenged abusive people.
This is the 150th Anniversary Edition of a book but there was no book by that title published 150 years ago.
There was a book with a similar title published that year though:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
I wonder how many people don't know this. Why shouldn't this book be banned?
Aww.. It's like Sears and Roebuck. How many people nowadays have even heard of Roebuck?
Yes. I'm sure you're right. It's for exactly the same reason.
I've heard plenty of people shriek at the mention of the disgusting *Roebuck*. Yet you seem to think it's no big deal. Hmmmm.
What is disgusting about Alvah Curtis Roebuck?
Nothing as far as I'm concerned. But you've just equated him with the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, so I assumed either you thought he was disgusting or that you think the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life isn't.
No, I equated him with people routinely dropping the second half of a name. We don't always refer to a book by both its title and its subtitle. We say "Uncle Tom's Cabin" without continuing on with the subtitle "Life among the Lowly" and everyone knows what is meant. It's foolish to insist that everyone always refer to a book by its full title. "Tom Sawyer" is actually titled "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer", but hardly anyone even knows that, let alone says it. They say, "Have you ever read Tom Sawyer?"
My own most recent book is entitled "Petrified by Astonishment - Homeric Themes in Doc Smith's Skylark Novels", but even I never go the length of reciting the full title when discussing it. I'll say something like, "Now in Petrified by astonishment, I wrote..."
Starhopper,
Doing an Amazon search for Darwin's origin title turns up this for the first book by that title.
This review is mostly on the publishing and not on the content. There is little unique that one could say about the content of a famous book published so long ago, that hasn't already been said.
The book has the full title printed on the outside cover. Many, if not most, printings of this work do not have the full title on the cover. Some may put the full title somewhere inside. But the full title often is omitted from the cover, even on editions claiming to be faithful reprinting of the the original edition, as published.
To the modern ear, the phrase "The Preservation of Favored Races" might sound a bit racist. Darwin's cousin Francis Galton is generally credited started the modern eugenics movement, providing even more reason to censor part of the full title, as many printings do.
To its great credit, this is one of the exceptions, and you may purchase it in either hardback or paperback.
The printing is clear and easy to read. The type is good sized, but this isn't a large print edition.
"The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" comes up by that title no problem.
For "Uncle Tom's Cabin" few books come up with the subtitle "Life among the Lowly". Maybe for the same reason.
The Soviet (mainly Russian) contribution to Allied victory in WWII is undeniable, but it was no more decisive than America's role. The fact that the Russians lost many more men than we did is largely due to their abysmal leadership and to their generals' callous disregard for their own soldiers' lives. (It's not a myth that Russian soldiers were marched through minefields to clear a path for those behind them. Other men were sent into battle without any weapon. They were told to pick one up from a dead soldier ahead of them in the attack.)
And don't forget Lend Lease. The Germans would have rolled over the Russians at Stalingrad but for Lend Lease. It tipped the balance in the Allies' favor.
Also, keep in mind that the Russians only had to worry about one front (the Eastern), whilst the USA was fighting on multiple fronts (North Atlantic, Caribbean, North African, Italian, Aleutian, Central Pacific, South Pacific, Western Europe, the bomber campaign, China/Burma/India).
//Change of Subject// I have no quarrel with Confederate monuments on private property. There's a house right down the street from where I live that flies the Confederate flag. I say, if a man wants to be a jackass in his own front yard, go for it. But they have no place on public land and/or in front of government buildings.
bmiller said...
Looks like Google removed Churchill's picture from "british prime ministers" search.
I just ran the search, and he was there.
But they have no place on public land and/or in front of government buildings.
Why would Baltimore, a city in a Union state have ever put any of those statues up in the first place? What was going on in Maryland. It never dawned on me that the historical control by the Democratic party played a large role in it.
Here's an article discussing the history.
Maryland still has a rebel tune as its official state song:
April 26, 1861: James Ryder Randall writes the poem “Maryland, My Maryland”
The death of Francis X. Ward inspired of James Ryder Randall, a native Marylander living and teaching in Louisiana, to compose a poem, “Maryland, My Maryland,” published on April 26, 1861 in the New Orleans newspaper Sunday Delta. Jennie Cary, a young woman living in Baltimore, set the poem to the tune of a popular song leading to its widespread adoption by Confederate troops during the Civil War and its popularity among Maryland’s Confederate veterans after the war. The lyrics describe President Abraham, Lincoln as a “tyrant,” “despot,” and “Vandal,” and in using the phrase “sic semper,” provided the same words shouted by Marylander John Wilkes Booth after assassinating Lincoln in 1865.1 “Maryland, My Maryland” did not become the official state song until 1939.
The state song of my beloved Maryland also makes mention of the "Northern scum"! (But nobody could object to that, right?)
That is quite the song you have there.
Time to change it out for "Bohemian Rhapsody".
Yikes! If it somehow came down to a choice between our current song and Bohemian Rhapsody, I'd choose our current song. The lesser of two evils.
At least it's singable.
I can't sing the "Star Spangled Banner" either, so I'd say it's a toss-up.
No one can sing The Star Spangled Banner!
For years now, I've thought that THIS ought to be our National Anthem.
I lived in Arizona right through university, and in school (in the 1960s) the Civil War was invariably called "The War Between the States". Kind of neutral, I'd say. I remember that in toy stores they would sell packets of (fake) Confederate money to play with. I bought a few of them myself when I was in grade school.
"What was going on in Maryland. It never dawned on me that the historical control by the Democratic party played a large role in it."
Not really. There was overwhelming support for the South in Maryland during the war. Lincoln was forced to put Baltimore under military occupation from the get go. One of the first "battles" (a skirmish, really) of the Civil War was fought in downtown Baltimore, outside what was then the train station. As things progressed, a majority of the Maryland militia went south to fight for the Confederacy. Henry Wooton (who has a stained glass window dedicated to him in my parish church) fought for Robert E. Lee in 1862-63, and was in General Early's cavalry raid in the summer of 1864 that came within inches of capturing the nation's capital after the Battle of Monocacy.
The Maryland state flag today is divided into four quarters. The black and yellow checkerboard quarters are from the coat of arms of Lord Baltimore. The red and white Cross of Saint George in the remaining quarters was the emblem of the Maryland militia that went south! So there's actually Confederate heraldry in my state's flag. It's just that no one except history nerds like me are aware of it.
It's just that no one except history nerds like me are aware of it.
Well now that you let the cat out of the bag you can finally get some exercise and march on the capital. :-)
It was called the Civil War where I'm from.
I always found it interesting that the westernmost land battle of the Civil War was fought in Arizona, the Battle of Stanwix Station (March 29, 1862), not far from Gila Bend. But what's really interesting is that no one today knows precisely where Stanwix Station actually was. (There is absolutely nothing there today - just desert.)
As to the Maryland flag, I wouldn't touch it! It's one of the 3 most objectively beautiful state flags in the US, the other 2 being Arizona and Alaska. (I also rather like New Mexico and Tennessee.)
By the way, I never looked it up before, but the Wikipedia article on the Maryland state flag does reveal its Confederate connections. So its no secret.
It was no secret who Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson were when Baltimore Mayor Thomas D’Alesandro Jr. dedicated that statue to them. It's just a matter of what one wants to call attention to.
Haha!
TDS victims now can't tell the difference between Trump and Churchill. As well as implying that people who report facts are conspiracy theorists.
It would really be a good strategy for a foreign government to try to divide the US and pit us against each other. But probably none of them have considered this.
bmiller said...
TDS victims now can't tell the difference between Trump and Churchill. As well as implying that people who report facts are conspiracy theorists.
'Churchill wasn't in the list of British Prime Ministers when I last performed a search' is a fact. 'Looks like Google removed Churchill's picture from "british prime ministers" search.' adds the element of deliberate interference, making it a conspiracy theory.
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
Post a Comment