<p>
</p>
<p>I do not agree with that. I have many christian friends who do have many different perceptions of god, osme not so different, and some very.
often, I do find that many of their interpretations contradict one another.</p>
<p>maybe you’re talking about the Catholic sect of Christianity, in which there is an established church and voice (the pope). HOwever, for protestants the way in which they percieve God can vary widely.</p>
<p>W1cked, a while back, you mentioned the trite, overused expression “religion is the opiate of society”. Who better to quote than Karl Marx, right W1cked? Actually, I can not stand when people quote that expression. It is almost as bad as "dude, “my bad”, and “awesome”. Most Christians do not use religion as a security blanket, but as a way to lead a moral life, to serve a benevolent God, and to influence society in a positive way. That expression is often quoted by people in the pursuit of acting intelligent. In a religious debate such as this, a clown like Marx should not be quoted, for I would not consider him a great theologian to ponder.</p>
<p>Trite, and overused quotation by Karl Marx? Really? Tell me, whats more trite; the quotation I used or religious rhetoric? Ever seen millions of fools congregate around a fool with a funny hat? Ever seen even more crowd around a rock? How about millions bathing in a filthy river? Most Christians use their religion is a positive way? Imposing your prejudice on another is not exactly positive. Christians who try to influence society are self righteous, mystic, arrogant, and hypocritical. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and their clones decry Islam as barbaric, and at the same time spew garbage about tsunamis and hurricanes being caused by gods and rhetoric about “moral collapse”. Might I ask how quoting Marx would make me sound more intelligent? If the expression is overused and trite, then that would defeat the point now, wouldn’t it? And finally, my apologies; next time I will quote someone like Tertullian or St. Augustine or Ayatollah Khomeini since they are such intellectual heavyweights.</p>
<p>Justinian,</p>
<p>Marx’s theories, while flawed, are still some of the most important political theories of the 20th century. He deserves a little more than “clown.”</p>
<p>And what’s wrong with “dude” and “my bad?” You sound uptight.</p>
<p>"The argument goes something like this: <code>I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God,</code>for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'</p>
<p>UCLAri, Right…Communism surely did affect history, did it not? Communism affected great people like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Castro, and the Cheka.
I suppose the few million people who were slaughtered during the Bolveshik Revolution wouldn’t agrue with you about that. And yes… I hate the expression “my bad”</p>
<p>Well, the same argument could be made about the words of Jesus, which have been used as political tools to lead oppressive regimes and organizations. That doesn’t make them WRONG. Marx’s theories are still useful tools for social scientists to gain a different perspective on historical trends. I may not always agree with Marxism, but I don’t just discount its usefulness based on the transgressions of Lenin or Stalin.</p>
<p>And what’s wrong with “my bad?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the fact is that communism was an integral part of the 20th century and shaped the world as it is today, not that it was a beneficial force. of course it was a malevolent force!
But just because it was bad doesn’t mean that it was not important.</p>
<p>The Crusades also involved hundreds of thousands of Muslims and CHristians slaughtering each other over a hundred years.
However, the crusades also opened up Europe to trade with other regions such as South Africa and ironically, the MIddle East, and sparked the beginnings of what would be the Renaissance.</p>
<p>Good post Xe :)</p>
<p>
This isn’t an arugment. Why do you think that? Do you not think that many positive factors could be created for each “terrible” communist thing that happened? Is it “bad” if you feel that more bad than good resulted from it?</p>
<p>What good has come out of Communism? My interest pricks me when it comes to this conundrum. I really can’t comprehend anything good from Communism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yes…</p>
<p>Justinian-
Communism jump-started the exploration of space, for one thing.
-Sputnik I, the first satellite into space, was launched by the U.S.S.R.
-The fear of domination of space by a communist power pushed the United states into the space race, and essentially was the birth of our space program.</p>
<p>communism’s ravages were inexcusable, but you can’t deny the fact that without it our world would be very different.</p>
<p>whether or not the world would be a better place with it we will never know.</p>
<p>Xe, I believe the American space program was jump started not because of a corrupt power, but because of the American drive to learn and to gain knowledge. Communism, in my opinion, has caused the deaths of more people than of any other philosophy, religion, or doctrine. Communism theoretically sparked the Vietnam War and Korean War, wars which resulted in the death of thousands upon thousands of US soldiers. Communism has corrupted thriving nations to economic disasters. I stand by my statement of the fact that COMMUNISM hadn’t any benefits and still poses a threat in todays society!</p>
<p>Wow, I clicked on this thread and the last post is about communism. I feel like it’s the game where a line of people whisper a word to each other down the line until the word is something completely different. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Anyway, I believe in God/Allah/whatever you want to call him.</p>
<p>guys, don’t confuse communist ideals with the forms of communism that have been adapted by the likes of stalin and the others, of course the USSR and China would be considered malevolent forces, but there is nothing in the true communist manifesto which mandates the slaughter and oppression of the people…</p>
<p>Yea, ok…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>history shows us clearly that the United States had no intention to going into space until the U.S.S.R. sent Sputnik I into space.
you would be very naive to believe that the U.S. began the space program to “advance humankind and explore the stars.” That is just being overly idealistic. Space exploration was a reactionary move to keep up public morale during the Cold War.</p>
<p>There is a reason why we have not sent anybody beyond the orbit of the moon (or the moon itself, for that matter) since the cold war ended in 1989.</p>
<p>in any case, this discussion has gone off course. thank you warblers.</p>
<p>gatordan: forcing everyone to live for everyone else is the utmost oppression - forcing workers to work for other workers instead of THEMSELVES is tragedy - the tragedy is not in the people killed under the Soviet Union’s reign, the tragedy is how they were forced to LIVE.</p>
<p>“God is dead.” Nietsche</p>
<p>“Nietsche is dead.” God </p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>Neverborn, I believe that any innocent life killed is a tragedy.</p>