Was Marx Right

[bahman]

Sorry I am talking about Crusade.

Do you mean the Islamic Crusades, which were the really big, imperialistic and deadly ones, or just the much, much smaller and briefer medieval counter-Crusades of the southern Europeans? Well, whichever you mean, obviously neither of them had anything at all to do with Christ, or with those who follow Him. You can't find anything He ever said that would sanction either.

According to wiki: "The Crusades were a series of religious wars initiated, supported, and sometimes directed by the Latin Church in the medieval period." So the Church was supporting the war which is against what Jesus asked.

[Immanuel Can]

So the Church was supporting the war which is against what Jesus asked.

There's actually a lot of debate about the motives of the Crusades...the few that weren't Muslim, that is. They were at least as political as they were religious, apparently. But on the religious side, they were entirely sponsored by medieval Catholicism in Europe.

Now, how close medieval Catholicism was to Christian, I'll let you be the judge. But you've already cited one of the many passages that would rule out any kind of temporal military conquest as being genuinely "Christian."

[bahman]

So the Church was supporting the war which is against what Jesus asked.

There's actually a lot of debate about the motives of the Crusades...the few that weren't Muslim, that is. They were at least as political as they were religious, apparently. But on the religious side, they were entirely sponsored by medieval Catholicism in Europe.

Now, how close medieval Catholicism was to Christian, I'll let you be the judge. But you've already cited one of the many passages that would rule out any kind of temporal military conquest as being genuinely "Christian."

So, Christian didn't kill anyone?

[Immanuel Can]

So, Christian didn't kill anyone?

It's not Christian to kill people. As Jesus said, "A tree is known by its fruit." In the same way, a person is known by what he/she does. Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them."

So what do you think?

[bahman]

So, Christian didn't kill anyone?

It's not Christian to kill people. As Jesus said, "A tree is known by its fruit." In the same way, a person is known by what he/she does. Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them."

So what do you think?

So the Church is not the way to the truth.

[Immanuel Can]

So the Church is not the way to the truth.

Which "church" are you talking about? There are lots of places that call themselves "church." Some are, and some aren't. What makes the difference is whether or not they're doing what Christ said.

[bahman]

So the Church is not the way to the truth.

Which "church" are you talking about? There are lots of places that call themselves "church." Some are, and some aren't. What makes the difference is whether or not they're doing what Christ said.

I mean Catholic Church.

[Immanuel Can]

I mean Catholic Church.

Judge for yourself. That's what Jesus Christ said we were to do.

[bahman]

I mean Catholic Church.

Judge for yourself. That's what Jesus Christ said we were to do.

And what He exactly said?

[Immanuel Can]

I mean Catholic Church.

Judge for yourself. That's what Jesus Christ said we were to do.

And what He exactly said?

Exactly what I said earlier. See Matthew 7:15-23

[bahman]

Judge for yourself. That's what Jesus Christ said we were to do.

And what He exactly said?

Exactly what I said earlier. See Matthew 7:15-23

Thanks for the quote.

[Immanuel Can]

Thanks for the quote.

No problem.

[Nick_A]

Who wins at war? From the Marx perspective, and for those in the cave, it is the victory of communism defeating those who oppose communism. The question results in fierce debates.

For those leaving the prison of cave life, they know the winner is "force." Simone Weil describes force in the beginning of her essay on the Iliad.

http://www.holoka.com/pdf-files/weil.pdf

1. The true hero, the true subject matter, the center of the Iliad is force. The force that men wield, the force
that subdues men, in the face of which human flesh shrinks back. The human soul seems ever conditioned by its ties with force, swept away, blinded by the force it believes it can control, bowed under the
constraint of the force it submits to. Those who have supposed that force, thanks to progress, now belongs to the past, have seen a record of that in Homer’s poem; those wise enough to discern the force at
the center of all human history, today as in the past, find in the Iliad the most beautiful and flawless of
mirrors.
2. Force is that which makes a thing of whoever submits to it. Exercised to the extreme, it makes the
human being a thing quite literally, that is, a dead body. Someone was there and, the next moment, no
one. The Iliad never tires of presenting us this tableau:.....................

Things killing things satisfying the needs of "force" Inside the cave and the domain of Marx, Man worries about who wins the war and furthers the agenda while outside the prison of the cave and the domain of Plato, people seek to understand "force." How many do?

[Conde Lucanor]

Obviously you don't believe in the forms described by Plato

Surely not.

But suppose Man doesn't direct the process and create his being in history? Instead it just happens like life in the jungle happens in accordance with universal laws. You are assuming consciouness and freedom of choice where I don't believe it exists.

That's a supposition already addressed in the history of social sciences. It's purely ideological. If biological determinism, man would just reproduce his existing conditions of life without change, as the rest of the natural kingdom. A tiger is just the same today as it was 2000 years ago.

[Nick_A]

Obviously you don't believe in the forms described by Plato

Surely not.

But suppose Man doesn't direct the process and create his being in history? Instead it just happens like life in the jungle happens in accordance with universal laws. You are assuming consciouness and freedom of choice where I don't believe it exists.

That's a supposition already addressed in the history of social sciences. It's purely ideological. If biological determinism, man would just reproduce his existing conditions of life without change, as the rest of the natural kingdom. A tiger is just the same today as it was 2000 years ago.

The only change is with technological knowledge but Man's being still expresses the same cycles it always has. We can kill more efficiently because of scientific knowledge but the need to kill hasn't changed. Do you disagree with the cycles explained in Ecclesiastes 3:

3 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:

2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

A society and people within it is born, matures, and dies. That is the cycle of life for Animal Man on earth along with the rest of organic life. Do you really think anything has changed?