Two moralities, theological and marxist I am reading interesting comments about communist morality, in a book devoted to Judaism, published in 1975. The authors are two rabbis, D. Prager and J. Telushkin. A Catholic or Russian orthodox theologian would probably make similar observations. Marxists and theologians, they write, "are both motivated by the desire to perfect the world and establish a utopia on earth. ... Both promote all-encompassing worldviews. But they diametrically oppose one another in almost every other way." The authors remind us that communists rejected "all morality derived from nonhuman [i.e. God] and nonclass concepts," as stated in 1920 by Lenin. ... "Marxist morality sanctions any act so long as that act was committed in the interest of [economic and political] class struggle." Nothing that Stalin, and Mao did was immoral, according to such ideology. Theologians, on the other hand, hold "that morality transcends economic, national, and individual interests." God's commandments are objective rather than subjective. Evil human acts are condemned, no matter what economic or political gains are derived from them. That is the essential difference. Greed in human nature, they emphasize, "may have helped create capitalism, but capitalism did not create greed in human nature." Theologians also deplore social injustice. But they reject brutal proletarian revolutions because "the roots of evil and injustice lie not in economics or society but in man himself." This has to do with the concept of freedom. "For Marxism, which conceives of the world in materialist terms, bondage is defined solely as servitude to external sources such as slave owners, capitalist bosses, or other forms of material inequality. Freedom is liberation from such servitude." People, as stated in the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels, must get rid of economic chains binding them. Then they will automatically cease to be evil. Theologians, on the other hand, see two kinds of liberation, from external and from internal bonds. "Once liberation from external servitude takes place, one must then liberate oneself from internal domination, the domination of one's life by passions, needs, irrationality and wants." The conflict between theologians and Marxists "is not economic, it is moral." Proletarian dictatorship was practiced in several countries; the results show that "when Marxist revolutionaries attain power they are at least as crual as their predecessors." Philosophical differences about morality, among different kinds of theologians, are minimal, as far as I know. But not all God-based moralities are equally successful to promoting internal freedom. Why is it so? What can be done to improve the situation, to bring our reality a little closer to "utopia" dreams? Ludwik
first off, all 'commands' are manmade. No gawd/god or such created anything of a 'command'. Egyptians began circumcision for its soldiers because they brought back diseases from the spoils of war. Evidence is dated over 2000 yrs before anything of a torah or any rendition there of. And the commands, are in the 3000 plus years before any type of torah or the 10 commands of. So both of the rabbi being quoted have the foundations of morality, lost to the beliefs, versus reality that they are all manmade. 2nd, you need to know the 'invisible hand' known as capitalism. Adam smith 1776 wrote a book 'wealth of nations' that shares that 'invisible hand' is that the 'business' itself, need no virtues as it defining of cause. 3rd, mankind is born good and then learns to be an idiot. What assist mankind in that 'utopia' is understanding (apocalypse-unveiling) of what life is and what we are within nature. and in all cases, it is mankind that completes the works. Does that help?
Marx wasnt opposed to Gods authority but to the churches authority, back then affiliated to the states authority. And Marx certainly did not envisage what Mao and Stalin would make out of his theories. Also not all theologians are interested in working on an utopia on earth. Some are just waiting for the return of Christ and see it as a given that the world will be corrupted until then. Capitalism practically enhances greed in human nature, because in Capitalism greed is presented as a virtue. That would strongly depend on the theologians. You have Luther opposing the peasants revolts and Thomas Müntzer becoming a leader in them (later to be revered a hero in the GDR). Liberation theology certainly wants to tackle the root causes of poverty and is in many ways Marxist. In all fairness: it's not as if the inquisition had not been brutal and even Calvin burned heretics. I don't see any kind of moral superiority in theologians per se as compared to political revolutionaries. Fact is that the church is as diverse as the rest of the world. You have theologians opposing gay marriage and theologians happily blessing gay partnerships. You have theologians supporting fascist ideologies and theologians promoting Christian anarchism. And as already mentioned above you have theologians strictly focusing on inward liberation (such as Luther) and theologians who turn into political fighters such as Müntzer. My personal advice for coming closer both to God inwardly and to "utopia dreams" outwardly would be to take Christs command to love our neighbours including our enemies as ourselves as seriously as possible. It's a tough one to live up to and also pretty open to interpretation, but if each of us gave it our best shot the world might be a lot brighter.
baby must learn where to find its first meal, by another or it dies........... that was for #3. Do you agree...... Yes or no
what a stupid line. greed in Human 'nature'??? .................... What is human nature???/ greed aint a virtue of capitalism.... try anothers opinion Hanley takes a very different tack. Smith, he claims, concedes nothing to those who would dismiss the virtues of Christendom, or of ancient Greece and Rome. On the contrary, in Part VI of TMS Smith celebrates these virtues, shows how they can be integrated with one another, and suggests that they remain achievable, and must remain an aspiration for us, even in modern commercial society. Hanley understands the three main sections of TMS VI as offering a layered solution to the three main ways in which commercial society degrades virtue (8-9, 93). Capitalism fosters restless consumerism and vanity; the first section of Part VI describes a virtue -- prudence -- that can serve as a palliative to these vices. The prudent person delays gratification and seeks modest amounts of material goods, rather than endless luxury goods and high social status; the prudent person does not succumb to the vices that Mandeville and Rousseau attributed to commerce (103). Prudence can, however, be the mark of a small-minded, selfish person, and magnanimity, the "greatness of soul" on which Smith focuses in section ii of Part VI, is meant to be a corrective for this (129-34). But people who transcend small-minded selfishness by aspiring to great deeds can be cruel and condescending, so Smith adds a corrective for magnanimity to his account of virtue in section iii: the truly "wise and virtuous" person, he says there, will have a deep concern for all humanity, and aspire to great beneficence rather than mere nobility (169-75).
An infant has to learn things OR be given things or it will die... uh... yup. Still waiting on that back-up, by the way.
When comparing Theology and Marxism you must remember they are both born of men. Since Theologians cannot directly communicate with God about his will they must speak for him which simply attributes another form of power to fallible men. The idea of Utopia is about illusionary as assuming a specific perspective can achieve it. Unfortunately all we have is trial and error which is why for me evidence and knowledge (when it can be quantified) still remains our most useful tools. Utopia may always be out of reach but the afore mentioned tools combined with the Golden Rule, at least in my opinion, should allow us to continue to improve our existence with the greatest results. My major beef with religion will always be men making extraordinary claims they feel should impact society with no evidence to support them. If God exists I highly doubt he would be daft enough to leave his word in the hands of men for the very reasons seen throughout human history. There is no reason for Gods best intentions to be on par with mans.
You just proved a fine point; children are led. Even in what to believe. Unless you want war with me, repeat after me...... babies are born pure and learn to be idiots. Because if you condemn a child based on bible, you are my enemy! - - - Updated - - - i didnt need to read another line that is fine work!
I've never made an enemy, bishadi - they've all made themselves. Yes, children are led. Even in what to believe... I'm still waiting for you to make a point. So far, all I've seen is non sequitur. Babies are born ignorant and damnable, and learn to be even more ignorant and damnable unless they are taught - by one method or another - of the world around them and beyond them. Those of one religion have the seed of truth in them, those of the other religions have the seed of ignorance. And I'm also still waiting on that back-up, by the way.
And yet that Golden Rule, that you want to base your morals on, is one of those extraordinary claims religious people all over the world felt should impact society with no evidence to support them. Its also a utopia of sorts: Im sure not even saints can fully live up to it. Well, if God exists, He clearly did just that: Arguably were the most powerful species on the planet, the only one that developed the ability to destroy the whole place including ourselves by just pressing some buttons. However, whereas human stupidity knows no limits and we might just press these buttons one day, if God exists, He is by definition not daft. So I should hope that He knew what He was doing when He created humankind, that were just work in progress and that eventually utopias may be possible. Utopia (οὐ- τόπος means a place that is not (yet). I doubt any of us will live to see it, but God has got plenty of time. Im not sure whether I interpreted your statement correctly here, but you are aware that every developed religion has come up with a variant of the prime commandment of abovementioned Golden Rule? So I would suppose that this was a truth so important that God decided to give its seed to all of us. Sadly whats often been overlooked is that one cant follow that commandment and still insult other peoples religions.
You've interpreted my post correctly if you think that I meant "There is only one Truth." And there is only one Truth - something opposing the truth cannot also be the truth. Yes, I am aware of the "variant" of the Golden Rule. I believe this is the action of the Law of God on our hearts - in other words, the conscience.
If I remember rightly Marx was contemptuous of utopians. If that's accurate then the authors mentioned might be doing a bit of strawman making.
I don’t doubt there’s one absolute truth. However, I doubt that anybody but God is in full possession of that truth. I believe that a bit of that truth can be found in Mt 7:3-5. So before pointing my finger at other people’s supposed ignorance I should first be very well aware of my own. I agree. But I can’t help but wonder how you can console it with your God-given conscience to claim that “those of one religion have the seed of truth in them, those of the other religions have the seed of ignorance”. Personally I would not like it if somebody said my religion has “the seed of ignorance”, so – adhering to my religion and the Golden Rule it has taught me – I feel obliged not to say that about other people’s religions.
I AM very well aware of my own, and I grow more aware of my lack of understanding daily. I also point out to others that they should be aware of THEIR own ignorance, and that they should grow aware of their own lack of understanding - just as you did for me. Or do you believe that you just committed hypocrisy as well? "Ignorance" has too much of a negative connotation these days, and an undeserved connotation. Its true definition is that of a "lack of knowledge" rather than "lack of intelligence." However, I think that if one is so afraid of offending someone else that he doesn't state the truth, he is a coward and a fool.
I surely can be a huge hypocrite at times. But in this case I hope that, rather than insulting your religious or personal feelings, I could be of help by sharing what I believe to be my tiny little glimpse of Gods truth with you. However, you still dont seem to be under the impression that nobody but God could be capable of stating the truth. So it seems you did not take my suggestions on board. Well, I guess I will just have to accept that difference of opinion.
No. What it does do is yet again show that anti-Godists may think they know theology and in so doing demonstrate foolishness and the most base level. Clearly you have no understanding of the rite of circumcision and what it means in Hebrew history AND faith. You can't criticize something the understanding of which clearly eludes you. Mankind is born good? Who ever had to teach their children to do bad things? Seems to me its the opposite
I DO believe that only God is capable of stating THE Truth. I also believe that the Bible is God's statement to humanity, so I surely must believe that it is THE Truth.
But the Bible wasn’t written by God personally, its truth went through the filter of men’s minds. Which is of course just one of many Christian opinions concerning the Bible, let alone the many opinions that Muslims, Jews and others have on it. Also the Bible’s scriptures – to whichever level they may be inspired – are vast open to various interpretations and it seems your and my interpretation of our Holy Scriptures differs greatly in places. Who’s to say which is the right one?
The Bible is God-inspired because, by the grace of God, I believe it to be so. The Bible is not open to various interpretations - those who lack understanding DO misinterpret it, but only a few moments of reading instead of listening to their favorite TV preachers would remove all misunderstanding from their minds. Particularly if this task is undertaken with the guidance of the Triune God, and the Holy Spirit in particular.
I agree...it is THE truth so long as you have the willingness and understanding to study it and know it well enough to know the difference in what is poetic refrain and what is historical fact; so long as well ALL appreciate that ANY version of the Bible we read is an interpretation to start with. And we must also have the humility to understand that is we are to use this miracle gift in the manner intended we had better damn well have the integrity to study ALL of it, and do the work necessary to fully comprehend what it means. Cite to me the one Paulian line "Women should be silent in church" as an absolute against women preachers and I will spend a few hours demonstrating just how that line, used that way, is, in fact, an evil lie. So, yes, it is truth. In the hands of the ignorant it is also a most cruel lie.
I think that it is fine for female preachers to stand in the pulpit, so long as they do not violate the headship principle by attempting to exercise authority over the men of the congregation. I happen to disagree with my synod in that regard.
So if your and my interpretations differ, and if both you and me feel just as guided by the Holy Spirit in our respective interpretation as the many many other Christians feel guided in theirs, who is to say who of us interprets it correctly?
God does. We agree on that score, I'm sure. However, the Bible is quite clear on all important subjects. Most individuals' problems with the Scriptures are resultant of distaste for taking responsibility, or of societal pressure and indoctrination.
