Atheism does not equal communism and vise versa

Because the post I quoted was two words long, and neither your words nor xstime’s made it clear to me your were talking about Stalin.

Lib, I understand that you were explaining Stalin’s views in all those other posts. I was talking about that one in particular.

I was explaining Stalin’s view, and Stalin’s interpretations of Marx’s (and Lenin’s) view. Just after I posted, Xtisme posted, and so I presumed he was maintaining continuity, as was I. 'Kay? :slight_smile:

Yes, it’s all clear now.

Cult of Mao

I wonder what they’ll be saying about him in 1000 years…

Cult of Stalin

Even alludes to the Leninist cult Stalin fostered…

Yes, anytime a government tries to enforce a specific ideology, philosophy or religion to the exclusion of all others it is not only anti-human and criminal but is ultimately self-destructive, and rarely successful at truly exterminating other ideologies anyway.

Splendidly put.

Too often, however, out there in the non-Dope world (and even in threads here) an anti-Religion debater will say that within the range of “evil men using the philosophies at their disposal”, organized religion (sometimes naming the particular one whith which he has a beef) is such an ideal tool for it and has been so often used so, that it is still evil. Aggravating, really.

I was probably the one who “trotted out” Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. It was in response to another thread, which attempted to blame ALL evil on religon. I trotted these three people out as an example of religon per se not being the reason. If I remember, my take was that it was a desire for power. Communism had nothing to do with it, and neither did religion. It was all about power.

For every Inquisition, there is a purge. For every Pizzaro, there is a Stalin. For every Torquemada, there is a Mao. Religion or no religion has little to do with it. Communism and fascism and religion are simply the tools that get twisted for personal gain. Hell, if communism was done the way Marx described it, it might have been a very good thing.

Kind of like if Christianity is done the way Jesus taught it.

Exactly. But that is a mighty big “if”.

Which is how?

You know, people actually loving their neighbors instead of judging them and smiting them when they do ill; people doing unto others as they would have done unto themselves; that whole sort of thing.

Luke 19:23, KJV

Of course, you’ll see a lot of rationalizing and cherry-picking of the portions of the “Good Book” that strike people as contrary to and incompatible with the love-and-snuggles version of Jesus/God they so adore, but the fact remains, how exactly Jesus wants a Christian to behave isn’t entirely clear, and never will be.

Luke 19:23, in the KJV is: “Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?”

Are you saying that passage is not in Luke, and hence have a point, or is this some kind of fucking irritating variant of Meldrum’s Corollary? Provide the correct passage then, scholar, or save the fucking snark for someone else.

[Luke 19 (KJV) - And [Jesus] entered and passed]Cite.

Sorry. Messed up coding.

Cite.

It’s Lk. 19:27.

It’s the tagline to the Parable of the Minas (AKA the Parable of the Pounds) and is generally read by Christians as eschatological (i.e. it’s a reference to what will happen on the day of judgement), not as a command for Christians to go around smoking infidels.

And the point is? Is there not ambiguity? Do none construe it differently? Could the end times be now or later? Is this a particularly loving statement? Is Jesus asking them to be killed with kindness? Does anyone really know what it really means?

I’m not arguing with you. I agree that it’s a troubling quote (personally, I don’t think Jesus even said it). I’m just telling you what Christians will say if you try to corner them with it.