Was Hitler as bad as some make him out to be?

[Alexis Jacobi]

One chooses to be involved, or one chooses not to be.

What is Armageddon in your view?

I understand it through the Revelation images.

How could one avoid being affected by an event of such scale?

[Harbal]

No. There's no such thing as "Christian persecution," unless you mean "the persecution of Christians," which is very common worldwide. Nothing that is evil can be genuinely done "in the name of God," just as nothing which is good can be done in service to evil. If a man says he serves God, but does not obey God, he lies. That's obvious.

So, Karl Marx says that nothing that was done by Stalin and Mao was the true Communism.

That's not possible. Marx didn't know Stalin or Mao. What Marx did, though, is call for violent revolution. He didn't define the terms. Stalin and Mao simply worked out the particulars, by following his philosophy.

Jesus Christ said, "Love your enemies," and "Do good to those that abuse you," and even "pray for them" and "turn the other cheek." You'll be familar with all that. And that is exactly why Karl Marx hated Christianity (which, along with Judaism, was the only "religion" that he knew, or that concerned him at all), and claimed that "the first critique" was "the critique of religion." It's why he called it "the opium of the masses," since it would counteract any possibility of violent revolution. Marx knew he could not get his project off the ground at all unless people were willing to do violence, and he knew that Christianity would prevent it.

So just listen to Marx. He'll tell you how it is. He needed violence...there was no other "revolutionary" possibility. Thus, that Mao, Stalin, Castro, Maduro, Ceauscescu, Mugabe, Kim Jong, Pol Pot, Hoxha, and all the rest became violent and murderous is no mere coincidence. Any Marxist is going to have to employ violence, because Marx taught that violent revolution and conflict are the essential dynamics of historical "progress."

You won't find that any Marxist regime ever did anything different, either.

Stalin's Killing spree was nothing to do with Marxism, it was a result of his paranoia and insecurity.

[Immanuel Can]

One chooses to be involved, or one chooses not to be.

What is Armageddon in your view?

I understand it through the Revelation images.

How could one avoid being affected by an event of such scale?

One could not be in it.

You need an update on your theology, perhaps.

[Immanuel Can]

So, Karl Marx says that nothing that was done by Stalin and Mao was the true Communism.

That's not possible. Marx didn't know Stalin or Mao. What Marx did, though, is call for violent revolution. He didn't define the terms. Stalin and Mao simply worked out the particulars, by following his philosophy.

Jesus Christ said, "Love your enemies," and "Do good to those that abuse you," and even "pray for them" and "turn the other cheek." You'll be familar with all that. And that is exactly why Karl Marx hated Christianity (which, along with Judaism, was the only "religion" that he knew, or that concerned him at all), and claimed that "the first critique" was "the critique of religion." It's why he called it "the opium of the masses," since it would counteract any possibility of violent revolution. Marx knew he could not get his project off the ground at all unless people were willing to do violence, and he knew that Christianity would prevent it.

So just listen to Marx. He'll tell you how it is. He needed violence...there was no other "revolutionary" possibility. Thus, that Mao, Stalin, Castro, Maduro, Ceauscescu, Mugabe, Kim Jong, Pol Pot, Hoxha, and all the rest became violent and murderous is no mere coincidence. Any Marxist is going to have to employ violence, because Marx taught that violent revolution and conflict are the essential dynamics of historical "progress."

You won't find that any Marxist regime ever did anything different, either.

Stalin's Killing spree was nothing to do with Marxism, it was a result of his paranoia and insecurity.

What about Mas? What about the Kim Jongs? What about Pol Pots? What about every other Marxist dictator in history's? How come every one of them does exactly the same thing?

[Harbal]

That's not possible. Marx didn't know Stalin or Mao. What Marx did, though, is call for violent revolution. He didn't define the terms. Stalin and Mao simply worked out the particulars, by following his philosophy.

Jesus Christ said, "Love your enemies," and "Do good to those that abuse you," and even "pray for them" and "turn the other cheek." You'll be familar with all that. And that is exactly why Karl Marx hated Christianity (which, along with Judaism, was the only "religion" that he knew, or that concerned him at all), and claimed that "the first critique" was "the critique of religion." It's why he called it "the opium of the masses," since it would counteract any possibility of violent revolution. Marx knew he could not get his project off the ground at all unless people were willing to do violence, and he knew that Christianity would prevent it.

So just listen to Marx. He'll tell you how it is. He needed violence...there was no other "revolutionary" possibility. Thus, that Mao, Stalin, Castro, Maduro, Ceauscescu, Mugabe, Kim Jong, Pol Pot, Hoxha, and all the rest became violent and murderous is no mere coincidence. Any Marxist is going to have to employ violence, because Marx taught that violent revolution and conflict are the essential dynamics of historical "progress."

You won't find that any Marxist regime ever did anything different, either.

Stalin's Killing spree was nothing to do with Marxism, it was a result of his paranoia and insecurity.

What about Mao's? What about the Kim Jongs'? What about Pol Pot's? What about every other Marxist dictator in history's? How come every one of them does exactly the same thing?

I know very little about those other people, which is why I haven't said anything about them. I do know enough about Stalin to feel able to say that your conclusions are incorrect. My thoughts on dictatorships in general would lead me to say that when someone manages to obtain absolute power, it inevitably ends up making them crazy, and they just start making all sorts of bizarre decisions. As most of the dictatorships in modern history seem to have been communist, it has created the impression in some people that communism is the main factor in the violent suppression of populations, but I think it is more a case of absolute power corrupting absolutely.

[Immanuel Can]

Stalin's Killing spree was nothing to do with Marxism, it was a result of his paranoia and insecurity.

What about Mao's? What about the Kim Jongs'? What about Pol Pot's? What about every other Marxist dictator in history's? How come every one of them does exactly the same thing?

I know very little about those other people, which is why I haven't said anything about them.

And I can't persuade you to find out?

Then you won't know.

You may wish to make excuses for the Stalin case (though I wouldn't), but you also need an excuse that covers every other Communist dictator in history.

Good luck.

[Harbal]

What about Mao's? What about the Kim Jongs'? What about Pol Pot's? What about every other Marxist dictator in history's? How come every one of them does exactly the same thing?

I know very little about those other people, which is why I haven't said anything about them.

And I can't persuade you to find out?

Then you won't know.

My only interest was to respond to what you said about Stalin, which is what I did.

You may wish to make excuses for the Stalin case (though I wouldn't), but you also need an excuse that covers every other Communist dictator in history.

I fully acknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal maniac, an absolute thug, brute and monster of a man, so I do not think I can be said to be making excuses for him.

[Iwannaplato]

That's not possible. Marx didn't know Stalin or Mao. What Marx did, though, is call for violent revolution.

Yes, a singIe vioIent revoIution which was carried out, for exampIe, in Russia in 1917. Marx did not say murder miIIions of serfs. Which StaIin did.

He didn't define the terms.

ActuaIIy he did. And murdering peasant farmers is not the proIetariat rising up against the bourgeousie. You'd have to be on acid to interpret most of the deaths at StaIin's hands as part of a bottom up revoution in a cIass struggIe. It has nothing to do with what Marx said.
It's harder to come up with a justification for that than using the OT to justify war.

Stalin and Mao simply worked out the particulars, by following his philosophy.

Nope.

Jesus Christ said, "Love your enemies," and "Do good to those that abuse you," and even "pray for them" and "turn the other cheek."

So, then the founders of the US and the current IsraeIi government are not foIIowing God's ruIes.

You'll be familar with all that. And that is exactly why Karl Marx hated Christianity

Maybe that's why the IsraeIi Ieaders despite being intimatey connected with the Iands of both Testements and weII aware of what Jesus said, decided not to beIieve in him. Why the founders of the US didn't foIIow Jesus in this is different.

Was it wrong of the founders of the US to use vioIence in that revoIution and in future wars other US Ieaders?

(which, along with Judaism, was the only "religion" that he knew, or that concerned him at all), and claimed that "the first critique" was "the critique of religion." It's why he called it "the opium of the masses," since it would counteract any possibility of violent revolution. Marx knew he could not get his project off the ground at all unless people were willing to do violence, and he knew that Christianity would prevent it.

Yeah, peopIe can't be convinced to do vioIence if they are reIigious.

But of course the founders, say Jefferson, did not accept Jesus as divine. Do you condemn him and the vioIence he and others advocated in their revoIution?

Why is it when a very compIicated contradictory set of texts such as the BibIe - which has a Iot of vioIence in the OT and a bunch at the end of the OT Ieads to murder it has nothing to do with Christianity, but when any interpretation at aII of Marx.....you get the rest.

And soon you'II perhaps teII me what those texts reaIIy mean or that the NT supercedes the OT or whatever. But any deity shouId have reaIized HOW humans wouId react to those texts, and understand much better than Marx what some nuts wouId do with his.

What Christian President has foIIowed Jesus?

Are you anti-nucIear weapon by the way?

[Immanuel Can]

I know very little about those other people, which is why I haven't said anything about them.

And I can't persuade you to find out?

Then you won't know.

My only interest was to respond to what you said about Stalin, which is what I did.

I had no idea you were Stalin's psychiatrist. You think you know why he did what he did? Excellent. Publish the report, so we can see your expertise.

Stalin thought he was a Marxist, and he claimed to do what he did for Marxist reasons. But he was lying, was he? And the Soviet Union...the entire population also wrongly thought they were following Marxism, but were really somehow being misled?

But you've got bigger problems you may not know about.

You've already said that you can dismiss the existence of God by just imagining Him away; so I suppose it makes sense that you think you can just imagine away all the other Marxist dictators, too. If you don't let yourself know anything about them, you suppose it doesn't count, and that will insulate you against the facts.

Hmmm...reality, meet Harbal. Harbal, meet reality.

[Immanuel Can]

Stalin and Mao simply worked out the particulars, by following his philosophy.

Nope.

So Stalin and Mao fooled the entire populations of the Soviet Union and China, claiming to be Marxists? And those who followed them also never read Marx? And the same for the Cambodians, the ZImbabweans, the Cubans...?

Jesus Christ said, "Love your enemies," and "Do good to those that abuse you," and even "pray for them" and "turn the other cheek."

So, then the founders of the US and the current IsraeIi government are not foIIowing God's ruIes.

Point me to a government that is.

(which, along with Judaism, was the only "religion" that he knew, or that concerned him at all), and claimed that "the first critique" was "the critique of religion." It's why he called it "the opium of the masses," since it would counteract any possibility of violent revolution. Marx knew he could not get his project off the ground at all unless people were willing to do violence, and he knew that Christianity would prevent it.

Yeah, peopIe can't be convinced to do vioIence if they are reIigious.

That's what Marx believed. Have you read him?

Apparently not. Maybe you should, before deciding what he did or didn't say.

[Harbal]

And I can't persuade you to find out?

Then you won't know.

My only interest was to respond to what you said about Stalin, which is what I did.

I had no idea you were Stalin's psychiatrist. You think you know why he did what he did? Excellent. Publish the report, so we can see your expertise.

Why is it reasonable for you to offer an opinion on Stalin's motives, but not for me to do the same?

Stalin thought he was a Marxist, and he claimed to do what he did for Marxist reasons. But he was lying, was he? And the Soviet Union...the entire population also wrongly thought they were following Marxism, but were really somehow being misled?

I think Stalin was mentally unstable, and that was the reason for his actions. I haven't read Das Kapital, or the Communist Manifesto, so maybe you could quote where Marx advocates the killing of thousands, on a more or less random basis?

You've already said that you can dismiss the existence of God by just imagining Him away;

No, I don't imagine God at all; you are the one with the imagination.

so I suppose it makes sense that you think you can just imagine away all the other Marxist dictators, too. If you don't let yourself know anything about them, you suppose it doesn't count, and that will insulate you against the facts.

I explained my thoughts about why they did what they did, but you never quoted that part of what I said, or even acknowledged it, which makes me think there must be at least some plausibility in what I said.

[promethean75]

"So Stalin and Mao fooled the entire populations of the Soviet Union and China, claiming to be Marxists?"

Filthy rich central party vanguardian autocrats who emerge after a revolution and live in yuge mansions would never tryda fool the people into believing what they're doing is 'marxist' so they don't revolt and continue cooperating instead.

Why would u even say such a thing?

[Immanuel Can]

My only interest was to respond to what you said about Stalin, which is what I did.

I had no idea you were Stalin's psychiatrist. You think you know why he did what he did? Excellent. Publish the report, so we can see your expertise.

Why is it reasonable for you to offer an opinion on Stalin's motives, but not for me to do the same?

I'm just believing exactly what he said, what he did, and what the Soviet peoples thought he did. You're proposing they were all wrong. I'm wanting to see your evidence.

I haven't read Das Kapital, or the Communist Manifesto,

I'll let you do that, so we can talk about evidence. Let me know when you're done. My copy's right here, on my desk. I've got both.

Doctor: "I have this medicine. It's called 'Communide.' Unfortunately, so far it has killed millions of patients, and has a 100% record of causing total system failure...but I'd like to put you on it."

Neo-Marxist: "A 100% record? Great! Put me on it, doc."

[Alexis Jacobi]

One chooses to be involved, or one chooses not to be.

What is Armageddon in your view?

I understand it through the Revelation images.

How could one avoid being affected by an event of such scale?

One could not be in it.

You need an update on your theology, perhaps.

You are being deliberately evasive and non-cooperative. I retract the questions.

[Immanuel Can]

What is Armageddon in your view?

I understand it through the Revelation images.

How could one avoid being affected by an event of such scale?

One could not be in it.

You need an update on your theology, perhaps.

You are being deliberately evasive and non-cooperative. I retract the questions.

I'm not. But I am curious to know what you think Armageddon is all about, since you make a very basic suppositional error -- namely, that God would do anything so unjust as to, as the Bible puts it, "slay the righteous with the wicked."

Armageddon's a terror for the haters of God. It's not for God's people. Clear enough?