DescentBB

Posted: **Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:51 pm**

http://www.lonestartimes.com/index.php? ... 74,0,0,1,0 [quote] During the Cold War, millions of American Catholics prayed for the conversion of Russia. Now, Christians are turning their attention to another Godless, communist nation:

Word has spread like wildfire of the Christian underground that helps fugitives to reach South Korea. People who lived in silent fear now dare to speak about escape. The regime has almost given up trying to stop them going, although it can savagely punish those caught and sent back. â??Everybody knows there is a way out,â?

Posted: **Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:59 pm**

KlubMarcus wrote: Who knows? Maybe all the money we spend buying products from Asia are being used to spread the word God and destroy communism in another inferior nation.

I highly doubt that any of the money that our retailers fork over to asian manufacturers winds up in the hands of these missionaries.

Posted: **Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:54 pm**

Avder wrote: I highly doubt that any of the money that our retailers fork over to asian manufacturers winds up in the hands of these missionaries.

The Christian businessmen from China mentioned in the article, what business do you think they are in? Electronics, textiles, toys, foodstuffs, etc...? The Korean language bibles they are financing, what are they for? But you still think that your retail purchases don't pay for it? The money to pay for the tsunami damage, do you think most of it comes from non-believers?

Posted: **Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:12 pm**

The spread of the word of God and the fall of communism are both things to be hoped for in North Korea, but there's no point in trying to associate or equate them (syncretism is harmful to the gospel.)

Posted: **Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:54 am**

Lothar wrote:The spread of the word of God and the fall of communism are both things to be hoped for in North Korea, but there's no point in trying to associate or equate them (syncretism is harmful to the gospel.)

There is a point. Communism and other repressive forms of government hate religion and religious people. It scares them because it forms a base to question their authority over the day to day lives of the people they want to control. That's why commies are more than happy to oppress Christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, etc.

The point is that government propaganda is severely hampered by religious activity. Kim Jong Il says, "I'm DA GREAT LEEEEEADER". The people hold up the bible and say, "There is one GREATER than you", and they have renewed hope to flee their inferior country for the "promised land" of America - or at least across the South Korean border where they are protected by American firepower.

Posted: **Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:26 pm**

KlubMarcus wrote:Communism and other repressive forms of government hate religion and religious people. It scares them because it forms a base to question their authority over the day to day lives of the people they want to control.

Overly simplified and somewhat correct, but I think you missed Lothar's point: The "fall of communism" and the "spread of democracy" are political agendas. Despite the relative social values of these, they cannot be construed as religious ideals.

In other words, you can be a Christian, and support the democratic system (most Christians do, including myself)... but there is no real truth to equations like "Democracy = Christian" or "Communism <> Christian". One may point out that the Founding Fathers had some very serious religious intentions when drafting the Constitution, or that the spread of Christianity is helped more by certain political systems, but that doesn't change the fact that democracy is not fundamentally a religious structure.

Here's another thing to think about: Just in regards to social responsibility, in it's purest form (not, I repeat not the way we've seen human nature and repressive governments apply it), the original social ideals of socialism (support for the poor and under-privileged classes, sharing of resources, etc.) are actually philosophically a bit closer to Paul's intentions for the early Christian churches than the "advantage to the most industrious" ideal of commercialism. Hmmm..

Posted: **Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:42 pm**

and Bizarro Marcus wrote:Christianity and other repressive forms of religion hate socialism and socialist people. It scares them because it forms a base to question their authority over the day to day lives of the people they want to control. That's why Christies are more than happy to oppress Communists, anarchists, islamic states, anarcho-syndicalist communes, etc.

Posted: **Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:02 pm**

Foil wrote:Just in regards to social responsibility, in it's purest form (not, I repeat not the way we've seen human nature and repressive governments apply it), the original social ideals of socialism (support for the poor and under-privileged classes, sharing of resources, etc.) are actually philosophically a bit closer to Paul's intentions for the early Christian churches than the "advantage to the most industrious" ideal of commercialism.

"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." - Acts 2:44-45. The very early church was perhaps the best implementation of communism, EVER. And let's not forget the entire Old Testament welfare system (see Leviticus 23:22, which is played out in Ruth 2.) One of the major themes in the whole Bible is to care for those who do not have the means to care for themselves. Those are the ideals behind socialism.

The major problem with modern socialism is that it's not a voluntary system. The Biblical ideal is all about personally caring for the poor, by leaving some grains behind when you harvest or by giving to those who have need or whatever. There are some modern communities where this is exactly what is done, and everyone shares everything. But when a government takes over, they force everyone into an economically bad arrangement.

You'll notice that whenever I criticize something like welfare, my criticism is not that we shouldn't help the poor -- it's that our system to help the poor should directly involve individuals, and participation should be out of the goodness of your own heart.

Roid, your restatement doesn't make all that much sense... it's capitalism, not socialism, that forms a base to question the church's authority over people's everyday lives. But it is funny to see the statement turned around...

Posted: **Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:50 pm**

Off topic but Roid, that was one of the best episodes of sealab ever

Lothar, your post leaves me wondering if you believe that we, as people in general, have a basis to question church authority in general. Would you mind elaborating?

Posted: **Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:21 pm**

Lothar wrote:"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." - Acts 2:44-45. The very early church was perhaps the best implementation of communism, EVER. And let's not forget the entire Old Testament welfare system (see Leviticus 23:22, which is played out in Ruth 2.) One of the major themes in the whole Bible is to care for those who do not have the means to care for themselves. Those are the ideals behind socialism.

The major problem with modern socialism is that it's not a voluntary system... when a government takes over, they force everyone into an economically bad arrangement.
...participation should be out of the goodness of your own heart.

You said it much better than I...

In practical terms, the democratic system is still a much better form of government than socialism/communism. We just have to make sure we don't leave the less fortunate behind in the process.

Posted: **Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:34 pm**

Avder wrote:Lothar, your post leaves me wondering if you believe that we, as people in general, have a basis to question church authority in general. Would you mind elaborating?

I believe everyone can and should question church authority -- ESPECIALLY the authority held by "churchianity". Real church is a voluntary community, and its only authority is over those who choose to be a part of it (and even then, the biggest threat it should have available is refusing to fellowship with someone.)

My point in the above post was that roid's reversal didn't make any sense. Socialism doesn't provide a "base" to criticize church authority, or any other sort of authority. There are plenty of things that do (capitalism being one) but socialism is not one of them. It's not that the authority should be unquestioned -- it's that socialism has nothing to do with whether or not it should.

Posted: **Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:47 pm**

We need both the right and the left.

Totally free systems spur people to achieve, but they oppress and abuse people, and result in all sorts of dangerous working situations and products. Nobody really wants to go back to the early 1900's. The socialistic influences on our system--e.g., minimum wage--are good and humane, and worth the burden on society.

Totally socialistic systems take care of everyone equally, but they spur no one to excellence, with the result that everyone is poor together. Nobody really wants to imitate the countries that have tried it. Free markets, fair reward for work--these are things that make people strive for excellence.

Some people are farther to the right, some farther to the left. For example, some think socialized medicine would be a good thing--just a humane way to take care of people. Others think it would be a bad thing--a good way to make sure everyone is minimally cared for and nobody really gets what they need. That's a value judgement, and it's okay to disagree. We need both the right and the left--without one or the other, we have a brutal or non-functional system.

Posted: **Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:54 pm**

(i don't get cable tv. "bizaro world" is a concept from very old american comics, not a TV show)

i just wrote the bizaro quote to show how fucked marcus was. his own words can be reversed, and then they actaully make sense

. can't deny the irony.
[spoiler](i can actually do this to every speech bush makes. swapping "sadam's regiem" for "my party". his "dangers of WMD" speeches making the MOST BIZARRO sense of all. but this is all besides the point, and so i feign appology for this entire <spoiler> segment rather than get team beaten with a patrio-stick)[/spoiler]

i'd say that capitalism is more christianity (as we know it*) friendly than socialism.

*these days. lothar i know you don't think highly of what some people label as "christianity", Could i even say that this is the MAJORITY of what passes for christianity these days?
last month or so i watched this great social documentary called "Status Anxiety" on the bittorrent channel that was all about how the concept of "Status Anxiety" has been introduced into modern society - and is the undodgeable social-concenquence spawned from the concepts of equal opportunity that that america (and now the rest of the 1st world) is founded on.

one thing brought out in the documentary was the difference between the general christianity in america VS the general christianity in Europe, Britian specifically.
American christianity seemed to have incorporated aspects of capitalism into itself - the rather EXTREME example shown in the documentary was rather frightening to me.

iherebyclicksubmit

Posted: **Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:09 am**

roid wrote:i'd say that capitalism is more christianity (as we know it*) friendly than socialism.

Right -- that was my point about syncretism. Capitalism has been merged with what was an already-warped version of Christianity to give us the modern thing which I call "Churchianity". (I think the name is appropriate -- people almost worship the church and the culture surrounding it.)

If you look at "Christianity" as emulation of the Biblical model, then it's very friendly to the concepts of socialism, though not to the way socialism has been practiced (and vice versa.) But if you look at "Christianity" as the thing merged to capitalism, well, those kinds of people will want to crush communism / socialism. That's why, in my very first post, I made the point that Christianity and the fall of communism shouldn't be linked together... I wanted to make the point that what Marcus was saying had nothing to do with real Christianity.

Posted: **Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:01 pm**

Lothar wrote:Capitalism has been merged with what was an already-warped version of Christianity to give us the modern thing which I call "Churchianity".

Interesting (and I agree, appropriate). I've never heard it before. Is it something you coined, or is it from another source?

Posted: **Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:04 pm**

I don't recall how it came about... I'm the only one I know who uses it, but it was likely coined by someone else in an off-hand remark.

Another good term is "Bibliolatry", for those who treat the Bible as an object of worship, rather than as a source of information. That one came off of a weblog I read for a little while...

Posted: **Thu Feb 03, 2005 9:09 pm**

That seems appropriate, considering how sacred some people thing the bible is. IMO, the bible can be just as error prone as any other book, it was written by men after all, and men, no matter how virtuous, have failings.

The Bible is a good roadmap to faith and a good guide, but it is not infallible, IMO. If one forgets to think for himself, one realizes the depths of ignorance.

Posted: **Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:18 am**

Lothar wrote:Another good term is "Bibliolatry", for those who treat the Bible as an object of worship, rather than as a source of information.

Hmm. Yeah. Violation of 1st Commandment
"you shall have no other gods before me"

Posted: **Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:54 am**

I should note...
Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive.
Communism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.
Communism is not necessarily repressive.
Christianity doesn't have any preference for economic systems; in fact if it has any bent it is socialist.

Posted: **Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:58 am**

in theory Sirus. in a perfect world, uncorrupted.

Posted: **Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:08 pm**

Quite true Sirius, but that "bent" would be within a strongly Christianized society, in which wrongdoing was enough to disciplined, and, if repeated, enough to get you ejected from the community. Thus, the socialistic society of the early churches was mostly justified, due to the basically nonexistent status of corruption and the fact that Christians in the early ages were mostly from the poorest classes of Roman society.

Posted: **Fri Feb 04, 2005 5:21 pm**

I know roid... in reality the two usually have problems together. But a lot of the arguments I see are based on misconceptions that communism is basically anti-freedom... that's not actually the case. Totalitarianism is what does that...

Posted: **Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:53 pm**

indeed. that irony is what i was hoping to get across with the bizzaro quote.

stupid people see enemys hiding in every shadow.

DescentBB

Christians against North Korea

Christians against North Korea

Re: Christians against North Korea

Re: Christians against North Korea