Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Marxism and Christianity...why not?

A friend sent me an email about the Chase Bank and the Christmas tree situation and I asked him to write me something on it.  He responded with the thought provoking piece below..........Some of you will agree, some will disagree;  give him your best shot in COMMENTS...thanks!

The official removal of a Christmas tree from the lobby of a Chase bank serves as the perfect example of the innate hypocrisy that is and always will be the chief symptom of the mental illness known as "political correctness." Chase claimed they were reacting to customer complaints that the bank was not being inclusive when Chase displayed a Christmas tree at, of all times, Christmas! They furthere explained that all decorations must be supplied by the corporate office. Be that as it may, what would be the reaction if Christians were to complain about non-Christian holidays as being noninclusive? What would corporate America and the main stream media have to say about a white Christian's complaint about a Kwanzaa display? We all know their reaction would be to charge racism on the part of the Christian. Ditto for complaints about Ramadan, Tet, Cinco de Mayo, Hanukkah, or any other ethnic or religious public display. And they would be right to say so. But they don't say that in defense of manger scenes, Christmas trees and Merry Christmas proclamations. In the world of political correctness, complaints about Christianity and bogus complaints of "separation of church and state" issues are not only not racism, but are considered perfectly moral and valid. This, while complaints about any other religion or ethnicity by white Christians will bring howls and frothy mouthed charges of racism. What explains this obvious hypocrisy?

I suggest it stems from a real and visceral hatred of Christianity on the part of a far left from whose Marxist roots sprang the insanity of political correctness in the first place. Insofar that Christianity is based on truth, and I mean absolute truth, it cannot be tolerated by the tyranny of political correctness which is based on the fog and human debasement of moral relativity. For the Christian, Jesus, who is truth, instructs in His absolute truth. This is seen by those in the world who have been indoctrinated by political correctness as being in direct conflict with their acceptance of moral relativity. Moral relativists must insist there is no absolute truth in order to maintain an unburdened conscious while pursuing their fallen life style. So who does the world condemn? Themselves, who fallen, live outside God's word or those whose very lives are to serve as testament to the infallible and eternally truthful Jesus Christ? Insofar that the world does not want to be reminded of its inequity, it must condemn Christianity as intolerant or noninclusive.

The State also has a vested interest in the abolition of Christianity and has faithfully been fulfilling its role since the encroachment of Marxism on the American political system starting immediately after WWII. Since then, America has been increasingly moving towards a Marxist state which is presently highlighted by the extremism of the Obama administration and its plethora of policies designed to run the lives of its subjects, not for freedom, but for "the greater good." In the Marxist state, which is quite naturally run by the fallen, the "greater good" always includes the most good for themselves. Hence, they cannot tolerate subjects whose allegiance is to a higher authority. Particularly, a righteous and truthful higher authority who desires a fruitful and joyous life for all His creation. The Marxist state demands total and complete subjugation of its population to the state while Christians rightfully put their faith in the Lord and not in man or his institutions. Therefore, Christianity cannot exist in the Marxist state.
So, attacks on Christianity will continue in all forms as the natural reaction of the fallen nature of man. Insofar that man and his institutions are incapable of correcting his own natural, fallen state, the only salvation for mankind is Salvation itself.
MGM

Fire away, either way!
z

31 comments:

Always On Watch said...

My "father-in-law" (He and my mother-in-law never married after Mr. AOW's father died) is a militant atheist, a member of the ACLU, etc., etc.

However, my father-in-law has no problems whatsoever with Christmas trees, Christmas parades, and the like. He even sends out Christmas cards (usually Santas, wreaths, stockings, or Christmas tress on the card's cover). In his words, "Christmas celebrations are beautiful. You know that I don't believe any of the religious nonsense."

If my father-in-law can be so tolerant, why can't other people?

Of course, my father-in-law isnt' a Marxist.

PS: Needless to say, I never discuss politics or religion with my father-in-law. No point in arguing with the man who gave my mother-in-law 20 years of care when she was stricken with Alzheimer's.

Elmers Brother said...

Why do we have gubmint in the first place?

Because we won't allow God to rule in our hearts and like the Israelites of the OT we keep crying out for a king.

So we expect gubmint to do what we won't allow God to do. In some ways we get what we deserve.

Ducky's here said...

Insofar that Christianity is based on truth, and I mean absolute truth

---------------------

No, it is not based on truth in the empiric sense. Religious propositions cannot be "proven". You should read some Popper or Wittgenstein before you wade into this topic unarmed.

It's also interesting that communal property is a basis of the early church. But Marxism is concerned with worker ownership of the means of industrial production so they aren't equivalent, except in the minds of right wingers who have never bothered to study the basis of Marxism.

... and all this sturm und drang over a pagan symbol. But I digress, what the heck does all this have to do with Marxism?

Ducky's here said...

What also confuses me is your rant against the state.

Last I looked, Citi was a private entity, criminal but still private.

We've had a several public tree lightings here in atheist Boston and my town put up the creche in the park downtown.

I'm not sure you've thought this out.

FrogBurger said...

It's also interesting that communal property is a basis of the early church. But Marxism is concerned with worker ownership of the means of industrial production so they aren't equivalent

How is it not equivalent? Owning the land collectively v.s owning, let's say, a factory collectively, is still owning the production means collectively and controlling production collectively.

And by the way communal property has led to famine here in the US and the failure of the Soviet Union. So it basically doesn't work.

You can read as much as you want Ducky but if you don't have the IQ and processing capabilities of understand AND QUESTION what you're reading based on your own judgment, that means you are a DRONE.

That's right. A drone. So don't come with the right wing B/S b/c you may have knowledge but you don't have the intellect. Two different things.

FrogBurger said...

Marx said religion of the opium of the people but the state is the opium of the leftards. Or if not the state, the collective which always lead to mediocrity.

Big difference: I can choose my religion. More importantly, I can choose to be the individual I am in an environment that is not pressured by the collective. I can define myself, change, evolve to find my happiness according to MY values.

So all the marxists out there are little fascistic minds and can go "se faire cuire un oeuf" if I had to put it politely in French.

Anonymous said...

Christmas is a federal holiday. It's recognized by our government as such, but to publicly celebrate it, is somehow wrong?

The Chase Bank is not a governmental institution, it's a privately held business. So, this isn't a question of separation of church and state.

This is a question only, about political correctness. The assault on any Christian holiday, or symbol
no matter how irreligious it is, has to be erased by those who demand fealty to the state only.

We have been undergoing this assault for forty years step by step, year by year, and each step we hoped was the last.

Well, this will continue by the same people who are so punitive, and so miserable to see others experience joy in the one thing they can't control, they can't abide it and will attempt to destroy it.

My answer to them is you can attack Christians, our celebrations, our symbols, but you can't remove what is in our hearts.

Christianity has existed for over 2000 years, it has withstood Marxism, Fascism, and all manner of tyrannies. It has gone underground in some cases, but it does endure, and will continue to do so.


Pris

Ticker said...

Wachovia/Wells Fargo did not have Christmas trees in the lobby this year UNTIL they received some rather irate complaints from the non-PC depositors. It seems that Wachovia/WF has blinked and if banks and branches want to put up trees then by all means.
In other words MONEY TALKS and deposits going out the door was not a good thing for management.

Ticker said...

Ducky give scripture to support you claim of Christianity being communal, Chapter and verse please. Then sit back and prepare to get a new Duck butt cause you gonna need one.

Z said...

Ducky, you said "I'm not sure you've thought this out."
It looks you haven't quite figured it out....our author certainly had.
But, I do get a kick out of the way you put it. I've posted probably 20 times on the FACT that Christianity is being maligned by the State, with facts and figures, and WE haven't 'thought this out'? :-)

Elbro: "So we expect gubmint to do what we won't allow God to do. In some ways we get what we deserve."
Sad, but true. The next step will be taking tax exemptions from church, I've been predicting that for ten years.
And, then, of course, there's the absurd CHURCH AND STATE prohibition from the leftwing, whose Leftwing is NOW encouraging people to work with the church to help others (as if churches haven't already)! (it's the Jeremiah Wright church, mostly)...they see no hypocrisy, either...I had to laugh at that one.

Pris, I finally heard the other night that a talk show host asked what I've been asking for the last 3 years or so ...."Wait, 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas, but stores want to avoid saying CHristmas, what...to tick off their customers?" It's unreal. Can they be THAT dense?
Sadly, I don't think it will be enough in the next generation for Christmas to only be in the hearts...it won't be for long, not with the beauty and the reminder of the reason for the season taken away. However, you're right; it will endure in a remnant, that's true.

Ticker, isn't it sad when institutions are forced to have a tree because of complaints. It's such an assault, a REAL CONTRIVED, cooperation of people who've actually bought into the CHRISTMAS HURTS OTHERS baloney.
How can anybody pass a beautifully decorated tree and feel the people who put that up want them CONVERTED!? I mean, it's laughable.

Again, the Progressives must push for a TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY. ONE person spills coffee, EVERYBODY has to drink it less hot; ONE PERSON trips, EVERYBODY has to build expensive gates around the source of the fall, ONE PERSON has an accident, EVERYBODY else has to accomodate so that accident can NEVER HAPPEN. ONE PERSON feigns offense at a lovely tree, EVERYBODY has to stop putting up a tree in the public square.

It's insane but it's fairly effective because the progressives pull at the PC heartstrings. If ONLY we had classes teaching the truth about political correctness..they'd have such obvious signs of the insanity of it ...but, alas...they got our teachers first. SO..

Z said...

"No, it is not based on truth in the empiric sense. Religious propositions cannot be "proven". You should read some Popper or Wittgenstein before you wade into this topic unarmed."

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1.
It's not easy to understand that if you don't have the background, but it would be good to try.'

Ticker said...

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1.
It's not easy to understand that if you don't have the background, but it would be good to try.'

Excellent reply Z. That verse is something that "secular humanist progressives" will seldom if ever understand for it contains absolute truths and they have no concept of absolutes.

beamish said...

I'm hanging up packs of menthol cigarettes and cans of grape soda for Kwanzaa.

Dave Miller said...

Ticker, one need look no further than Acts 2 for a description of how the early Christian community lived.

It clearly was a communal situation.

Whether that is a model for living today, or even if it could work, is another story. But we have a clear picture in New Testament Scripture of how the earliest believers lived.

Z said...

by necessity, the earliest Christians clung together....communal living? Perhaps... How else? I believe every early society did, come to think of it.
Obviously, the pink elephant in THIS ROOM is COLLECTIVISM: SOCIALISM.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say the government shall support anyone.
EVERYWHERE in the Bible does it say that we as individuals must help the other out..as was the purpose in the early communal situation, which we've evolved from through hard work and independence and free spirit, but may be going back into with the kind of economic idiocy the left is hoisting on us.
We will be helping each other because it will be a blessing for others and a privilege for us, or likewise.

i'll be back later.. thanks for this interesting conversation. Please keep it going..I'd like to hear more

Dave Miller said...

Here's the passage in question...

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

We should remember that when this was happening, there was still no widespread persecutions happening to the new believers.

This Acts passage is describing a time well before the fall of Jerusalem and the beginning of the persecutions of Christians, so it is hard to argue that people banded together out of necessity.

They banded together out of choice, because they believed, or were taught by the Apostles, that living in community was part of God's plan.

We should be careful not to impute upon these early Christians our current understandings of Socialism, collectivism, et al, as those systems had yet to be developed or defined.

Ducky's here said...

Also z, you'll find that militant atheist groups are behind most of the complaints and they are far more likely to be Libertarian than Marxist.

And it's interesting that my town always puts up a creche even though we have a significant Muslim population, no complaints.

Ticker said...

David here is my response. I can see that you have a grasp already on what I have written. Of course the Duck has no clue.

Acts 2:43 is probably one of the most mis-understood and mis-used verses in the Scriputure. It is frequently used by non-believers to condemn Christianity and used by those same people with socialist leanings to attempt to gain acceptance of their agenda among “believers” who are uninformed and ignorant of the true teaching and meaning of the passages.

In order to understand this passage one has to understand the times(historical) in which it was written and to whom it was being written to. Luke, said to be the author of Acts was by his own admission not he was not an eyewitness to the events of the Gospel. Luke was also not a Jew but most probably a Greek or Greek/Syrian and lived his early life in Antioch until his joining with Paul in his travels. Luke was writing this to others than Jews since he was not an evangilist to the Jews but rather to the Gentiles. He addresses one Theophilus, a Roman and probably a Hellenized Roman. Luke uses the Greek phrase apanta koina (everything in common) alluding to the idea of the Hellenistic ideas that “friends hold all things in common”. To Theophilus or persons such as Theophilus Luke would have been saying that the Holy Spirit had made possible a reality that approached the highest and most ideal aspirations of the philosophers. At the same time, this group of Christians “who had everything in common” matched the idealism of Jewish communal groups. The statement has led to some misleading views of what Christian communities should be like. Luke was not telling us that the church should practice "Christian communism."

That being said, it is worth to note that many misread the scripture and assume that all of the Jerusalem Christians were required to sell all of their goods and pool their resources. That is far from correct for it was done voluntarily or otherwise the generous gift of Barabas as noted in the fourth chapter of Acts would have been noted. We know that the Apostles did not demand this as shown in Acts 5:4 "While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold was it not in thine own power?" Luke depicts this selling to meet community needs as an ongoing process rather than a one-time divestment. It was evidently adapted to the special circumstances of the early converts. Many of them came from abroad. They were from Parthia, and Media, and Arabia, and Rome, and Africa, etc. It is probable, also, that they now remained longer in Jerusalem than they had at first proposed; and it is not at all improbable that they would be denied now the usual hospitalities of the Jews, and excluded from their customary kindness, because they had embraced Jesus of Nazareth, who had been just put to death. In these circumstances, it was natural and proper that they should share their property while they remained together.
We also know that this was not the common case as in Paul's writings he, often spoke of the distinction of rich and poor, and Christ hath said that the poor we always have with us, and shall have, and the rich must be always doing them good out of the rents, issues, and profits, of their estates, which they disable themselves to do, if they sell them, and give all away at once

We know that the Disciples , while selling many of their belongings inorder to follow Jesus did not divest themselves totally of their properties. One only need read the passage where Jesus and others used Peters boat to go across to the other side. We also see that Peter still owned his boat when Jesus commanded him to cast his nets on the other side of the boat. It is also recorded that Jesus went to Peters house.

I hope that this clarifies what is commonly misunderstood about this passage. I would be more than happy to go into more detail on this subject if necessary. I did an entire paper on this very subject and can offer various other insights on the subject.

WomanHonorThyself said...

The official removal of a Christmas tree from the lobby of a Chase bank serves as the perfect example of the innate hypocrisy that is and always will be the chief symptom of the mental illness known as "political correctness."..exactly right...but hey...if it were izzzzzzlamic it would be spiffy!

Z said...

David, actually, there was very little time before Christians were shunned.
and yes, it is important to understand that the community of Christians is NOT SOCIALISM.
THink GOVERNMENT..that's all we're saying. The very obvious implication of 'Chrisitian communal living' is that 'socialism works'...and, as you say, equating the two is downright silly.
Thanks for taking the time to comment so thoroughly, I truly do appreciate it.

WOW, I just read TICKER'S response and am even more (much more) informed on this subject, THANKS TICKER..It's a real blessing to have comments like the ones I'm reading today....

Ducky, what a good anecdotal story. As you know, we don't slam muslims here for being muslims...we slam the bad guys and we keep praying upon prayer that the 'good ones' will FINALLY stand up to the sick amongst them.
Muslims have never complained in the past (pre 9/11) and Christians haven't complained about muslims in the past (pre 9/11)...who's surprised at your information? Not I.
I know plenty of Marxist atheists, but good to know you feel there is a goodly amount of libertarian atheists; I'd respect them much more than Marxists.

Ticker said...

David, thanks for your comments. I understand what you are saying. I do need to take some exception and that is on the subject of persecution. While there was not outrright persecution at that very point in time one has to remember what had just happened in the "Believers" community. Jesus had been seized by the Jewish leaders and crucified by the Roman Government which certainly gave no feeling of safety at that time. The Disciples had scattered if you remember and then joined together in the upper room, fearful in part for their own lives and awaiting instructions on what now to do. As promised by Jesus the "comforter"(Holy Spirit) came and that gave them the boldness that they needed to once again go out and now preach the "good news". For indeed now it was the good news. All the things promised had been fulfilled. Yes they joined together as it says in the Scripture but as I stated from there the Scripture gets a bit misused . It is my duty to "educate" those who don't know and I would be failing if I did not do so. Thanks again. I have enjoyed the conversation. However I see that Duck has once again hidden under the desk due to a lack of facts.

Z, I do so love teaching even though I am not a teacher by any means or stretch of the imagination. Just a country boy, filled with the Holy Spirit.

Anonymous said...

Lots of good information here. Particularly the distinction between the "community" of believers and Communism." It would seem though, as many have pointed out, the difference lies in how government fits into all this. If an individual earns his own way and in a sense of giving shares with the needy, that is absolutely Christian, If an individual earns his own way, and people in the government use the force of government to confiscate an amount on which they decide of he earners money to be used to further their own political agenda (and keep some for themselves in the process), well, then you have Communism.

MGM

christian soldier said...

until Christians organize and focus their "out-rage" as do other religions and groups-they will continue to be stepped upon---
as to Chase-maybe we should boycott said bank--
C-CS

beamish said...

until Christians organize and focus their "out-rage" as do other religions and groups-they will continue to be stepped upon---

What about turning the other cheek?

Craig said...

until Christians organize and focus their "out-rage" as do other religions and groups-they will continue to be stepped upon---

Yeah, if it hadn't snowed, I'd never know it was Christmas time. I'm not a Christian but we still fit right in with an evergreen in the house, Holly and Mistletoe. Being Druid has it's advantages.

Happy Holidays, all.

Anonymous said...

"What about turning the other cheek?"

Beamish, we did that for forty years, now look where it got us. It's time for the killjoys to turn theirs.

Pris

FrogBurger said...

Craig are you a druid like in Asterix? Do you make "potion magique?"

Elmers Brother said...

As a Christian, I wish Christmas were not a national holiday. I wish for Christians shuck the material culture that surrounds the last four months of the year and the many traditions that surround it and have absolutely nothing to do with Christmas.

Check out Advent Conspiracy

Anonymous said...

I think Elmers...." makes a very good point. And while this has nothing to do with the secular war on Christmas, I do believe that Christmas has evolved into a retailer's dream and has lost much of its true meaning, why does it benefit Christians to see the birth of the Lord commercialized and His message distorted? We might be better off to celebrate His birth in our churches and amongst ourselves. I don't think Christmas, the way it is "celebrated" today has much evangelical value. But, if Christmas was purely about the birth of Christ and we exchanged gifts only celebration of that, we might all be better for it.

Anonymous said...

Last post was from

MGM

Z said...

My family remembers the meaning and celebrates mightily...I think the two can be done together, but I do appreciate the sentiment of Elbro and definitely see the points behind the idea of no commercialism.I just don't see why it has to be commercial just to commemorate the gift giving with our loved ones.....