Evil and Christians

[Dubious]

Yeah I know the numbers.

If you did, you'd also know there aren't enough excuses in the world to excuse Marxism for what it has done.

Marxism, in its Russian and Chinese formats, mutilated Marx as much as Christianity mutilated Jesus; that history of corruption was many times longer.

[promethean75]

Yeah i just don't know about the veracity of that argument. Half of those fuckers were about to die anyway whether the Bolsheviks took power or not. Same thing in rural China.

It's like a shift change in prison. The inmates are already all to shit before second shift even comes on. Can't blame second shift for that, mate.

[promethean75]

"that history of corruption was many times longer

Indeed. We'd need to run a history of Marxism that was as long as a history of Christianity and see how often Marx was corrupted.

The good news. If we did that we'd have gotten round to Marxism sooner than the industrial revolution and, in effect, spared the millions of deaths that happened in the 20th century.

It's like Back To The Future but with communists. If you go back in time and stop your own massacre by implementing revolution sooner you will prevent your own existence as a pseudo-marxist dictator in the future.

[Immanuel Can]

Yeah I know the numbers.

If you did, you'd also know there aren't enough excuses in the world to excuse Marxism for what it has done.

Marxism, in its Russian and Chinese formats, mutilated Marx...

"Mutilated"? What part of Marx did they "mutilate"?

I can tell you what commandment of Jesus was violated by inquisitors, so if Stalin or Mao "mutilated" Marx, you should have no problem identifying in what sense you mean they did that.

[Immanuel Can]

If you did, you'd also know there aren't enough excuses in the world to excuse Marxism for what it has done.

Marxism, in its Russian and Chinese formats, mutilated Marx...

"Mutilated"? What part of Marx did they "mutilate"?

I can tell you what commandment of Jesus was violated by inquisitors, so if Stalin or Mao "mutilated" Marx, you should have no problem identifying in what sense you mean they did that.

Wow. There sure aren't a lot of people queueing up to tell me.

But that's because there's nothing to "mutilate" in Marx, by what Mao and Stalin did by way of atrocities. In fact, Marx was very much in favour of violence and bloodshed, which he regarded as totally necessary to the success of his "revolution." He said so, and repeatedly. If one has read him, one will discover there are no particular moral prohibitions -- or even any reluctance -- in Marx over doing whatever one wants to one's "class enemies," so declared. And I doubt anybody can explain any way in which Mao and Stalin failed to be "true Marxists" in how they treated their enemies.

Jesus Christ told us to love our enemies, never to return evil for evil to them, and to pray for them, even when they treat us badly. So we know the inquisitors, if they could be called "Christian" at all, which is highly dubious, were definitely behaving in anti-Christian ways. That's not even in doubt.

Do we have any reason to suppose the same is true of Marx, that his followers have violated his injunctions to humane treatment of others, and thus "mutilated" the poor old man's intentions?

[Walker]

Perhaps they're confused. Here's some possible sources of the confusion, which may apply to some with ambition who have a public voice and can influence public views, such as what happened big time in the sixties.

Long before that, Swami Vivekananda, a socialist, was sent to the United States by Ramakrishna to spread the word. He came from a rigid class structure, but did not advocate class revolution.

Folks likely consider socialism to be the benevolent socialism of Vivekananda, rather than the messy class-conflict of Marx that advocates revolution and overthrow of what is, rather than creation and building of what is not.

What’s interesting is that Vivekananda was sent to the USA because the West was seen as the next evolution of spirituality in the world by his sender, Ramakrishna, and Vivekananda was an early emissary of spiritual East to West.

Socialists pride themselves on being more spiritually evolved than crass capitalists, and the imaginative possibility of Vivekananda’s benevolent socialism functioning within the West’s informal, fluid class structures could be the source of confusion for the well-intentioned yutes, especially those aiming for world peace and no conflict anywhere, who have been told how special they are all their lives. Kids now can call the cops on their parents. Logically speaking, special people have a good chance of making work, what has not worked before. However, confusing the intent of Marxism with the spiritual, benevolent intent of Vivekananda-style socialism, which essentially reduced down to feed the hungry, ain't gonna make it happen.

Vivekananda’s position on socialism was actually … spiritually-based, non-denominational charity in the United States, and it worked, however such thinking gave Christian charities too much power over the people, so the gubberment took over and began taking care of the needy, which replaced both Christian Charity and family. Now, warehousing the old ones is popular so the young ones can be all they can be, and the warehoused can relive the surrender of responsibility as in the days of youthful institutionalizations.

Now, since the government took over charity, being needy is an institution, a front for corruption, and the definition of need has expanded into everyone's pocket.

[Immanuel Can]

Long before that, Swami Vivekananda, a socialist, was sent to the United States by Ramakrishna to spread the word. He came from a rigid class structure, but did not advocate class revolution.

Here's a book on that very subject.

Critical Reception: Scholars and writers—such as science journalist John Horgan and religious studies scholar Dr. David C. Lane—praise the work for its extensive research and provocative look into guru devotion, while noting its dark and disruptive tone. (Goodreads)

https://www.amazon.com/Stripping-Gurus- ... 128&sr=8-1

[Walker]

Long before that, Swami Vivekananda, a socialist, was sent to the United States by Ramakrishna to spread the word. He came from a rigid class structure, but did not advocate class revolution.

Here's a book on that very subject.

Critical Reception: Scholars and writers—such as science journalist John Horgan and religious studies scholar Dr. David C. Lane—praise the work for its extensive research and provocative look into guru devotion, while noting its dark and disruptive tone. (Goodreads)

https://www.amazon.com/Stripping-Gurus- ... 128&sr=8-1

Interesting. I didn't know about that. I was mostly deducing (inferring) from another angle, from what I learned seeking explanations for personal experiences and insights.

However, here's a parallel to the corrupted guru angle ...

I recently watched an episode of the TV series, House. I forget the number, it popped up at random. At one point in the plot, House had figured out that sudden pain would cause hallucinations in the patient, and that would be proof of his hypothesis. The patient only had about two hours to live, so he had to take extreme measures. He started poking the girl here and there with a needle to create pain, to the horror of the parents who were watching. Or maybe they were guardians, I'm not quite sure and it's not that important. They were quite upset, shouting, threatening and stuff. Even House's doctors were upset because they didn't know why, and House had not explained. There wasn't time. He had experienced an epiphany and was testing it.

Anyway, back to the point, the needle here and there caused the girl to scream in pain and fear (an effect of her unknown illness) but the pain wasn't enough of a trigger. So, House broke her finger. Her pinky. Quite painful. This triggered a visual hallucination that was verified by an external machine, that validated the hypothesis, and saved the life.

Not every enlightenment guru was of House's capacity.

If House's diagnosis was wrong, he would have just broken her finger and probably would have been disbarred* for causing undue pain and suffering before the inevitable death ... if those parents and other doctors had anything to say about it, in court, under oath.


*Or whatever they do to doctors.