No. Marx would have been unhappy that the Revolution did not take place in England but in Russia...but he would have been pleased with the Revolution. His followers understood him well, and the bloody deeds of their hands are also on his.
Doubt it? Well then, tell me one place in the world where practicing Marxism has let people to be better than if they had not. And Marx, he wouldn't have cared. He was, by all biographical accounts, a rather nasty man at best.
I do not Doubt that Marx worked for revolution in the UK (duh I don't think he meant "England", dollard), but not unhappy about the revolution in Russia: his ideas were internationalist. But he would have been horrified that the Soviet immediately abandoned everything he wished for the post-revolutionary world. By all biographical accounts that of people that knew him, he worked tirelessly for the poor and oppressed. No one but his enemies called him "nasty" except ignorant schoolkids "educated" in the USA.
I doubted if you had any good reason to reject "religion" and my suspicions were confirmed.
So now you're defending "religion"?
Duh! Do you do this to appear stupid and then write something surprisingly reasonable? If you do then you might want to consider also writing something reasonable afterwards.
Or just your own use of the word? Of course, you can use language any way you wish. Just not all of it will be informative. The word "religion" isn't helpful. It makes people think they understand things about which they actually have no clue...such as that Mormons, Pentecostals and ISIL are the same thing. No one with half a brain could believe that without a whole lot of "anti-religion" propaganda; and no one with half a brain would believe it with even a few basic facts in hand.
It has to be based on a belief in resurrection into eternal life, a belief in God, and a belief in holiness. Without these things there is no point to religion and it is a waste of your life, you may as well go get high and hire some hookers.
ianrust wrote:It has to be based on a belief in resurrection into eternal life, a belief in God, and a belief in holiness. Without these things there is no point to religion and it is a waste of your life, you may as well go get high and hire some hookers.
You have walking into the wrong forum. You forgot to turn down the yellow brick road to the church.
I'd rather hire a hooker than spend time in a church.
No. Marx would have been unhappy that the Revolution did not take place in England but in Russia...but he would have been pleased with the Revolution. His followers understood him well, and the bloody deeds of their hands are also on his.
Then why did he say he wasn't a marxist?
Doubt it? Well then, tell me one place in the world where practicing Marxism has let people to be better than if they had not.
Kerala and for women who wanted to be engineers or cosmonauts, Soviet Russia.
ianrust wrote:It has to be based on a belief in resurrection into eternal life, a belief in God, and a belief in holiness. Without these things there is no point to religion and it is a waste of your life, you may as well go get high and hire some hookers.
You have walking into the wrong forum. You forgot to turn down the yellow brick road to the church.
I'd rather hire a hooker than spend time in a church.
Why would you waste your life on religion if these aspects were not present? Belief in God - irrelevant if there is no resurrection. Belief in God - irrelevant if there is no moral standard.
?
ianrust wrote:It has to be based on a belief in resurrection into eternal life, a belief in God, and a belief in holiness. Without these things there is no point to religion and it is a waste of your life, you may as well go get high and hire some hookers.
You have walking into the wrong forum. You forgot to turn down the yellow brick road to the church.
I'd rather hire a hooker than spend time in a church.
Why would you waste your life on religion if these aspects were not present? Belief in God - irrelevant if there is no resurrection. Belief in God - irrelevant if there is no moral standard.
?
You have no idea what I'm talking about. That is correct.
Humans set moral standards, and a persons religious belief influences their moral convictions.
ianrust wrote:You have no idea what I'm talking about. That is correct.
Humans set moral standards, and a persons religious belief influences their moral convictions.
Or their moral convictions influence religion. In other words you are saying nothing.
ianrust wrote:You have no idea what I'm talking about. That is correct.
Humans set moral standards, and a persons religious belief influences their moral convictions.
Or their moral convictions influence religion. In other words you are saying nothing.
God axiomatically precedes all arguments. So no, this cannot be made circular.
ianrust wrote:You have no idea what I'm talking about. That is correct.
Humans set moral standards, and a persons religious belief influences their moral convictions.
Or their moral convictions influence religion. In other words you are saying nothing.
God axiomatically precedes all arguments. So no, this cannot be made circular.
Axiomatically you can state that anyone thing precedes another. Just start with any delusional maxim!!
Like I said, you are saying nothing.
In the beginning there was Caesar the Chimp.
QED Casear influenced "ianrust".
If there were no Caesar, then there could not have been any Ian Rust.
Ian Rust owes everything to the chimp called Caesar.
