The Christian Agenda Continues

[quote]lucasa wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I understand that probably Rush Limpdick or Bill Orieley said Progressive means Communism , but that is not what the dictionary says . I want some back up . Not this I am an Accountant bull shit . Let’s deal facts [/quote]

Not to speak on Bean’s, or Rush’s, or O’Reilly’s behalf but, does Marx count as an authority on Communism? I mean, it’s in The Manifesto, Communism is the (intended or desired) result of progress(ivism).

I’ll be honest, I’m not sure what the dictionary says, I’d have to check as to whether Marx references the dictionary or the dictionary references Marx.

Tribal life(Primitive Communism)->Slavery->Feudalism->Capitalism->Socialism->Communism it was clearly portrayed as a social progression, I’m curious as to how you missed it?

EDIT: They were even iteratively numbered, First Stage, Second Stage, Third Stage… are you sure you and he/they are talking about the same Communism?[/quote]

Well thank you for a rational response.

It looks like the reason the Progressive movement got the tag Communism attached was the Communist party did not field a candidate in 1948 and instead endorsed the Candidate for the Progressive Party .

But back to the word Progress or Progressive they have a meaning and it is not communism .

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

It looks like the reason the Progressive movement got the tag Communism attached was the Communist party did not field a candidate in 1948 and instead endorsed the Candidate for the Progressive Party .[/quote]

I don’t see how this disproves much of anything. When you can’t have communism, vote progressive. Like “Communism Light” or “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Communism!”

That may be the reason why it was attached, but history is the reason why it stuck. The labeling of progressives as communists has far more to do with analogy of ethos rather than some obscure piece of historical trivia that probably neither the labelled nor the labellers are really aware of or concerned with. The central idea that there is some utopic ultimate human society to which we all have to be guided or marshaled.

Only in a strictly non-political and/or non-social sense. Seeing as this is the PWI forum… If your false ideology were true, any alternative or change proposed or undetaken by any member of our government would be seen as progressive. Paul Ryan’s progressive budget, Congress’ progressive stance on gun control, or GW Bush’s progressive foreign policies.

[quote]lucasa wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I understand that probably Rush Limpdick or Bill Orieley said Progressive means Communism , but that is not what the dictionary says . I want some back up . Not this I am an Accountant bull shit . Let’s deal facts [/quote]

Not to speak on Bean’s, or Rush’s, or O’Reilly’s behalf but, does Marx count as an authority on Communism? I mean, it’s in The Manifesto, Communism is the (intended or desired) result of progress(ivism).

I’ll be honest, I’m not sure what the dictionary says, I’d have to check as to whether Marx references the dictionary or the dictionary references Marx.

Tribal life(Primitive Communism)->Slavery->Feudalism->Capitalism->Socialism->Communism it was clearly portrayed as a social progression, I’m curious as to how you missed it?

EDIT: They were even iteratively numbered, First Stage, Second Stage, Third Stage… are you sure you and he/they are talking about the same Communism?[/quote]

Well please , tell me where this valuable info is , so I may consume it with my eyes :slight_smile:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Well please , tell me where this valuable info is , so I may consume it with my eyes :slight_smile:
[/quote]

You pretty clearly don’t have eyes or, if you own them, they don’t work. I’m pretty convinced you’re a forum-spamming AI, capable of composing responses to posts on the forum, but not much else.

I’d tell you to pick up a copy of Marx’s works, but I’ve already told you that’s where this information is. I wasn’t sure you and 'beans were talking about the same Communism and this makes it pretty clear that not only are you illiterate in the fundamental history of Communism, but thousands of years after the invention of the library and dozens of years after the invention of the internet, you are still incapable of finding basic information about the general history and founding principles of Communism.

If you have eyes, they’ve seen neither a library nor the internet and have considerable trouble reading and interpreting printed text. So, here you go (potentially human) spam-bot, good luck;
http://5z8.info/56-DEPLOY-TROJAN-287.mw9----_v2z6jz_--INITIATE-CREDIT-CARD-XFER--

I first must say I have to learn how to do that Google trick :slight_smile:

One term I see mentioned more than once is democratic , democracy and such , am I supposed to equate any Democracy =Communism ?

I did not read the wiki link but I did read over it , I could not find one mention of the word progress or any variation .

And even if Marx mentioned that a progressive effort was being launched to promote Communism , that would not give Communism ownership of the word progressive any more than it would give if it used any word .

Communism = Communism

Progress = Progress there can be all kinds of progress so called conservatives can make all kinds of so called conservative progress :slight_smile:

So you can defend beans all you like I call his comment Progressive = Communism utter BULLSHIT and your are entitled to believe any BULLSHIT you like

http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Wallace_to_Ayers_Communist_Progressive.pdf

Another link that will be ignored.

All communists are progressive, but not all progressive people are communists.

Progressive are a vague term that in our modern political climate often is used as a synonym for centerl-left partys, individuals and policys.
Its not an clearly defined ideology as for example Liberalism and Socialism.

[quote]florelius wrote:
All communists are progressive, but not all progressive people are communists.

Progressive are a vague term that in our modern political climate often is used as a synonym for centerl-left partys, individuals and policys.
Its not an clearly defined ideology as for example Liberalism and Socialism.[/quote]

Center/left in Norway is radical left in the States though.

Can you be a little more clear which center left you mean?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I did not read the wiki link but I did read over it , I could not find one mention of the word progress or any variation .[/quote]

Confirmed bot (that or you have a form of Wernicke’s aphasia). You didn’t read it or you did, either way you didn’t really form any real thoughts of your own or of someone else’s you managed just enough consciousness to repost (sort of).

So, if a conservative makes conservative progress, he is a Progressive (politician)?

Beans is quite capable of defending himself. You’re the one picking irrelevant factoids from history and positing them as THE source for some misportrayal or misunderstanding, passing off shit for shinola…

[quote]lucasa wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I did not read the wiki link but I did read over it , I could not find one mention of the word progress or any variation .[/quote]

Confirmed bot (that or you have a form of Wernicke’s aphasia). You didn’t read it or you did, either way you didn’t really form any real thoughts of your own or of someone else’s you managed just enough consciousness to repost (sort of).

So, if a conservative makes conservative progress, he is a Progressive (politician)?

Beans is quite capable of defending himself. You’re the one picking irrelevant factoids from history and positing them as THE source for some misportrayal or misunderstanding, passing off shit for shinola…
[/quote]

Sure he could be Progressive and a conservative , IMO you can be a liberal Conservative .
Liberal social policy conservative fiscal policy . There is a lot of progress that could be made conserving our fiscal resources that would have a liberating effect on American society

Beans is quite a bit more sensitive than I gave him credit for . No problem dishing it out , gets butt hurt if some one gives him the same :slight_smile:

I read the high lights . feel free to find where Marx claimed the word progress as his own

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
All communists are progressive, but not all progressive people are communists.

Progressive are a vague term that in our modern political climate often is used as a synonym for centerl-left partys, individuals and policys.
Its not an clearly defined ideology as for example Liberalism and Socialism.[/quote]

Center/left in Norway is radical left in the States though.

Can you be a little more clear which center left you mean?[/quote]

Social Liberalism and/or Social Democracy.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Wallace_to_Ayers_Communist_Progressive.pdf

Another link that will be ignored.[/quote]

Maybe because it could not stand up to your criteria for being impartial or unbiased

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My contention is that idolatry is not synonymous with atheism: you can reject belief in the Abrahamic God, but if you create your own god…[/quote]

I’m sorry?

[/quote]

Idolatry is the worship of gods that are fashioned by man. What part of this is unclear?[/quote]

And who, that Pat brought up, literally did this?
[/quote]

I couldn’t tell from the photo he posted the nationality of the pile of corpses he was implying were murdered by an atheist regime: they must have been either Soviet or Chinese, which is why my response referenced Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, who created a monolithic state as the replacement for God, and tjemselves as semidivine personages. My contention, for the third time, is that this is idolatry.

This was easy in both societies, because the Russians were already conditioned by the Russian Orthodox Church to regard the Tsar as a demigod, selected to rule over them by God himself. Note that the “atheist” Stalin (an Orthodox seminarian) never banned the Church, in fact kept close ties with the Church throughout his reign, even helped in appointing bishops. Stalin appealed to the Church to legitimize his rule, which it did. In Russia, if you wanted to emulate the tsar, and make yourself a godlike figure, you got the Church behind you.

Nikita Krushchev criticized Stalin for this… long after The Boss was dead, of course:

“It is impermissible and foreign to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism to elevate one person, to transform him into a superman possessing supernatural characteristics akin to those of a god.”

Stalinist Russia was not an atheist state. The State was God, and Stalin was Demigod.

In Confucian China, the ancestors were revered almost as gods. They were prayed to, and shrines were built in every home to honor them. You can still see these shrines in homes throughout China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam… anywhere Confucianism had any influence. Mao inaugurated a campaign to discredit and criticize Confucian teaching that gave legitimacy to feudalism, but he capitalized (no pun intended) on the propensity of Chinese peasants to idolize (literally) their ancestors, and co-opted ancestor worship as Mao-worship.

Mao may not have literally believed himself a god (you never know, he was pretty batty) but he certainly encouraged his followers to think of him as one.

I know how hard it must be to let go of the comforting fiction that Mao and Stalin were atheists, and that their societies were atheist societies, because as soon as we let go of this fiction, we imagine that we will lose a bit of the moral high ground we have built on the bones of the dusty old syllogism “Mao and Stalin were atheists, they did atrocious things, therefore atheism promotes atrocity”, but I think a more compelling case for your particular religion can be made without resorting to patently false arguments.

The fact is, all belief systems have the potential to commit atrocity, if wielded by demagogues with armies. Even pacifist religions and egalitarian economic systems.

Especially if these demagogues corrupt these belief systems to aggrandize themselves with power and adulation that rightly belongs only to God. [/quote]
Stalin used the church to spy on people to send to the gulags, had to keep the quota up. it was not because he supported the church, it was a means to the end.Even to this day many high bishops still in power had connection to NKVD or KGB, essentially they were stoolies placed by the government, just like people in universities, clubs etc anything to keep the red terror alive and thriving.Fear bred obedience. As for Stalin being God, I don’t think anyone prayed to him, but utmost devotion was definitely enforced. I think personality cult is the correct term for what Mao and Stalin had going for them.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]espenl wrote:
Though the atheist in me would prefer not, one part of my daughters names is Christiane. It helps that the name is called from my wifes lesbian sister :slight_smile: Kristian and Kristine are common names in Norway.[/quote]

You’re in good company. Could there be a more ironic name than Christopher (“bearer of Christ”) Hitchens?[/quote]

Well his brother is Christian, and I don’t think many people connect Christopher to bearer of Christ.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Plus, once someone in the world pushes the Catholic Church out of first place when it comes to helping the “widows and orphans” maybe we’ll consider getting rid of such epicenters of civilization and culture.[/quote]

Just out of curiosity, how does one measure these things? By total amount of charitable donations and offerings collected worldwide, or by amount actually spent on the aforesaid widows and orphans? Also, if the Church is in first place, who is in second, and by how much are they lagging behind?[/quote]

From the equation should be subtract government handouts?[/quote]

Nah, I’m just interested in a dollar amount of the total donations collected from parishioners worldwide, plus whatever percentage of the Vatican’s considerable tax-free income derived its worldwide real estate holdings and investments in the banking, insurance, chemical, steel, and construction industries. For the sake of argument, we’ll lump the Roman and Eastern Catholics together, and throw in the other Christian orthodoxies as well, even if they aren’t necessarily aligned with the Pope.

Next, I would like to see the dollar amount that actually goes toward charitable activities, specifically the care, feeding, housing and education of widows and orphans.

Once we have that, I would like to see these numbers compares with the same numbers from all the various Protestant denominations and sects, from Muslim organizations. We will disregard donations to and activities by organizations like Medecins Sans Frontieres, which are not affiliated with any religious institution.

Question: do we lump the Mormons in with the Protestants or the Muslims? Let’s say Protestants. Are Anglicans and Episcopalians more Catholic or Protestant? Let’s say Protestant as well, just for laughs. After all, Henry the Eighth, who invented the Church of England, protested the Catholic Church pretty hard.

So now we have three groups, roughly equivalent in size, all of whom take in massive amounts of money, and all of whom help widows and orphans.

I’d want to see the total take from all sources: tithes, collection plates/baskets/bags, charity boxes, along with telephone/mail-in/Internet donations solicited or otherwise, along with deathbed bequests and tax-deductible lump-sum disbursements on the Protestant side, and worldwide collection of zakat (the 2.5 percent of net worth a Muslim must give (think of it as a faith-based charity tax), plus khums a fifth of annual income, generally collected among the Shi’a plus sadaqa, which is all other voluntary donations.

Admittedly, any comparison along these lines runs into a few difficulties. Do we count the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies a “Catholic charity”, a “Muslim charity” or both? It takes in donations from people of all faiths (even those amoral atheists), and helps widows and orphans, infidels and heretics alike. Another problem is that whereas the income and charitable activities of Team Catholic are relatively easy to quantify, inasmuch as it has a relatively organized structure, the other two groups are more fragmented and decentralized in nature. It’s kind of like trying to track the income and expenditures of the Italian and Russian Mafia with that of the Crips and Bloods on one hand, and the Aryan Brotherhood, Hell’s Angels and the Ku Klux Klan on the other. Not that I would ever compare religious organizations to criminal organizations, just illustrating the difficulties involved.

So that is my question. It is one thing to say that Team Catholic is Number One at the the helping widows and orphan game, but without hard numbers and a solid basis of comparison with Team Protestant and Team Muslim, this is a difficult claim to back up. How about it, Brother Chris? I seem to recall you saying something about scientific evidence and the burden of proof. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Let us know.[/quote]

I am eager to know also. This would be a daunting undertaking.
[/quote]

It is, sorry I have been away. I have been going through several surgeries plus rehabbing from two strokes.

It would be a big task to show that Catholicism is number one trying to figure out all the man hours of all the institutes, from Knights of Columbus to St. Vincent de Paul to St. Mary’s food banks, &c. Then on top of that figure out the funding of Catholic Charities. But, I’ll see what I can do.

Looking at America (hard to find numbers for the world), Catholic Charities is number 5. (The 100 Largest U.S. Charities List)

But, then look at Africa:

1137 hospitals
5375 dispensaries
184 Lazarets
184 houses for old people and chronicly ill
1285 orphanages
2037 gardens for childhood
1673 family counseling
2882 centers for sanity education
1365 institutions for poor’s assistance
67848 Maternal schools
93315 Primary Schools
42234 Secondary schools

Source: http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/emergenza-umanitaria-emergencia-humanitaria-humanitarian-emergency-6857/

Plus if you look at Caritas International, you add another $5,715,895.97 to the $4,393,000 from Catholic Charities. But, that is only about 20 minutes of research. Those numbers are pretty high for yearly revenue. I’ll keep adding numbers as I find them.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Hey, I’m not going on a Catholic bashing spree but I disagree. When one looks at the New Testament one doesn’t see God asking for “gifts” like the ones you described.[/quote]

No, but we see that people did give him gifts. Oil on the feet, colt to ride on, tomb to bury him, &c. God doesn’t demand it, we agree. However, love of God compels man to do things that don’t make sense. [/quote]

Yep, “Oil on the feet, colt to ride on, tomb to bury him, etc.”

Those things are the very antithesis of opulent.[/quote]

Oil on the feet, from Judas feel was a sign of opulents. And, a tomb to bury him was bought by a rich man, for himself, is also opulent. Only the rich would buy a tomb. Plus, you had the three ladies who paid for his ministry.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
How could it not be? It was…god’s will! Deus vult![/quote]

I don’t believe God’s Will is mentioned in the Doctrine of Just War, but if that’s what you want to believe, I suppose you’ll have to convince me that the Pope heard God tell him his will.