Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Luminesa]

Except we know the Gospel of Mary is a forgery, written long after Mary had died...

That's a terrible argument.

We don't 'know' it was a forgery - we only know when the earliest extant texts date from. We don't know if they are based on earlier texts, etc.

It's no more or less authentic than any other scriptural text.

http://www.livescience.com/51954-gospel ... igins.html

There's a lot of evidence pointing toward it being either a forgery and/or not written at the time of the other accepted Gospels. Either way, a simple Google search goes a long way.

[Luminesa]

Really, GnI? Regurgitating this freethinker dreck would be understandable if you were posting on r/atheism...and were fourteen. But a man of your years spouting this sort of mendacity is embarrassing. If you had bothered to even make use of a single thought in relation to the distinction of the situations, you could have made a post of mature quality, but instead you treat memes like the trump suit.

I'm just going to ignore this chapter of infantile fame.

You seriously don't know that Christ's followers, unlike Smith's, were actually firsthand witnesses of the Resurrection?

Smith's follower's would be irrelevant to the veracity or the age of his source. Smith claims a much earlier, contemporary source, that he is just interpreting - and that source would be beyond reproach.

And that Smith's firsthand supporters actually fell out with him? No? You didn't know that? Or you didn't know that the miracle of Christ's Resurrection was initially met with skepticism by his followers, and that the witness of the four women was rejected outright? They were far from gullible. Or did it not occur to you that the miracle of the Resurrection was something witnessed after Christ's death, and therefore not possibly a tool or delusion stemming from one leader (unless, of course, you accept it as true, in which case it stemmed from Christ). Did it also not occur to you that Christ's followers did not gain any worldly advantage (like the ability to have multiple wives), but rather the Apostles had to forfeit their worldly life. Or maybe you didn't consider that some followers, like James the Just, and Paul, were powerful and respected religious leaders, and forfeited that to follow Christ? Or maybe you didn't consider that while Mormons were killed, the direct choice of "recant or be killed" wasn't faced by any of them? In being Mormons they took a risk, yes, but there weren't situations where they were on a scaffold and told if they recanted, they'd be immediately be freed.

Well, this is just silly.

People do all kinds of things just to feel important, or even just because they believe in something.

Every war ever fought has had people giving all for something they believed in, and gaining nothing for themselves but a bloody end. Paul turned himself from a minor figure in one religion to the prophet of a new one. He's not even the only person to do it, or die for it.

And it's silliness to say that the fact that the resurrection was disbelieved is evidence it was true. If anything, it's evidence to the contrary - and that the myth of resurrection is added and becomes popular later.

If you want a parallel, look at other accretive myths - Arthurian legend being a personal favourite. The problem is - you're not looking at the evidence with objective eyes - like you arguably would if we were discussing King Arthur - so you can't see the flaws and the logical conclusions.

Which is actually fine. I'm happy for you to believe whatever you want to believe.

The Resurrection is included in the Gospels as early as Paul. And he was only the first to write the story down, at least in part, as before then it would have been oral tradition.

[Grave_n_idle]

There's a lot of evidence pointing toward it being either a forgery and/or not written at the time of the other accepted Gospels. Either way, a simple Google search goes a long way.

Not being written at the same time as the other gospels (which weren't all written at the same time, either) is not the same as forgery.

Most Biblical scholars agree that the gospels as they exist now are partially based on one-another and partially based on earlier 'lost' sources - that doesn't mean they were 'forgeries'.

[Grave_n_idle]

The Resurrection is included in the Gospels as early as Paul. And he was only the first to write the story down, at least in part, as before then it would have been oral tradition.

Arguably, all the scriptures - canonical AND non-canonical - were oral tradition before they were written down.

The fact that one got transcribed earlier than another (and that assumption is largely based on extant evidence) doesn't necessarily mean it's more true.

Now, if you can find one written during Jesus' ministry, by someone who was not part of his movement - that would be an interesting source.

[Salus Maior]

There's a lot of evidence pointing toward it being either a forgery and/or not written at the time of the other accepted Gospels. Either way, a simple Google search goes a long way.

Not being written at the same time as the other gospels (which weren't all written at the same time, either) is not the same as forgery.

When it's literally written centuries after, you can't expect people to take it as seriously as texts written earlier.

That's a terrible argument.

We don't 'know' it was a forgery - we only know when the earliest extant texts date from. We don't know if they are based on earlier texts, etc.

It's no more or less authentic than any other scriptural text.

Why don't you provide some evidence that the Gnostic gospels were written earlier. Because frankly, I'm far more willing to trust historians who know what they're doing than an internet atheist trying to prove a point.

[Grave_n_idle]

Why don't you provide some evidence that the Gnostic gospels were written earlier.

Written earlier than what?

Because frankly, I'm far more willing to trust historians who know what they're doing than an internet atheist trying to prove a point.

You said a mouthful there.

First - it's entirely possible to be an atheist and a historian.

Second - I'm not actually sure which point you think I'm trying to prove that would somehow be in opposition to what a historian might do - atheist or otherwise.

Third - I've made couple of points in this particular thread of debate - scripture texts (most historians agree) tend to be based on earlier texts we don't necessarily have extant copies of. That's not a controversial position. Indeed, that is the position that 'historians who know what they're doing' tend to take.

That would be true of the four famous canonised gospels and, almost inevitably, for the less well known, less canonical texts too.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Why don't you provide some evidence that the Gnostic gospels were written earlier.

Written earlier than what?

earlier than what the current consensus is, I think.

Because frankly, I'm far more willing to trust historians who know what they're doing than an internet atheist trying to prove a point.

You said a mouthful there.

First - it's entirely possible to be an atheist and a historian.

He never implied otherwise, don't twist his words. He rejects you as an internet anon with a clear bias.

Second - I'm not actually sure which point you think I'm trying to prove that would somehow be in opposition to what a historian might do - atheist or otherwise.

He never said that either, he asked for evidence which is exactly what a historian would provide.

Third - I've made couple of points in this particular thread of debate - scripture texts (most historians agree) tend to be based on earlier texts we don't necessarily have extant copies of. That's not a controversial position. Indeed, that is the position that 'historians who know what they're doing' tend to take.

. No, they only assume that if critical analysis suggests it, they don't hold to that as a rule. We have evidence that suggests the canonical gospels as we know them had a few earlier renditions. This however doesn't apply universally.

That would be true of the four famous canonised gospels and, almost inevitably, for the less well known, less canonical texts too.

Again, not implicitly.

[Venerable Bede]

There was never a rift between Peter and Mary.

Well, at least we agree on something.

I'm pretty sure we agree on most straightforward doctrinal matters, it's the approach and mindset that's the issue, and that's entirely due to our differing traditions. Catholicism emphasizes reasoning and logic, Orthodoxy emphasizes Patristics.

Hence

And that's the difference between you and me, I'm not adopting anybody's view. I'm asserting a position I came to through deduction. I look at every source, and weigh their claims.

We never had scholasticism, you must remember. For someone to say, "The Church Fathers said this, but I hold to my position because of deduction," is completely disagreeable. This is why some of us (including Dostoevsky) saw Catholicism not as the antithesis of Reformation theology, but as the mother.

[Venerable Bede]

Really, GnI? Regurgitating this freethinker dreck would be understandable if you were posting on r/atheism...and were fourteen. But a man of your years spouting this sort of mendacity is embarrassing. If you had bothered to even make use of a single thought in relation to the distinction of the situations, you could have made a post of mature quality, but instead you treat memes like the trump suit.

I'm just going to ignore this chapter of infantile fame.

You seriously don't know that Christ's followers, unlike Smith's, were actually firsthand witnesses of the Resurrection?

Smith's follower's would be irrelevant to the veracity or the age of his source. Smith claims a much earlier, contemporary source, that he is just interpreting - and that source would be beyond reproach.

And that Smith's firsthand supporters actually fell out with him? No? You didn't know that? Or you didn't know that the miracle of Christ's Resurrection was initially met with skepticism by his followers, and that the witness of the four women was rejected outright? They were far from gullible. Or did it not occur to you that the miracle of the Resurrection was something witnessed after Christ's death, and therefore not possibly a tool or delusion stemming from one leader (unless, of course, you accept it as true, in which case it stemmed from Christ). Did it also not occur to you that Christ's followers did not gain any worldly advantage (like the ability to have multiple wives), but rather the Apostles had to forfeit their worldly life. Or maybe you didn't consider that some followers, like James the Just, and Paul, were powerful and respected religious leaders, and forfeited that to follow Christ? Or maybe you didn't consider that while Mormons were killed, the direct choice of "recant or be killed" wasn't faced by any of them? In being Mormons they took a risk, yes, but there weren't situations where they were on a scaffold and told if they recanted, they'd be immediately be freed.

Well, this is just silly.

People do all kinds of things just to feel important, or even just because they believe in something.

Every war ever fought has had people giving all for something they believed in, and gaining nothing for themselves but a bloody end. Paul turned himself from a minor figure in one religion to the prophet of a new one. He's not even the only person to do it, or die for it.

And it's silliness to say that the fact that the resurrection was disbelieved is evidence it was true. If anything, it's evidence to the contrary - and that the myth of resurrection is added and becomes popular later.

If you want a parallel, look at other accretive myths - Arthurian legend being a personal favourite. The problem is - you're not looking at the evidence with objective eyes - like you arguably would if we were discussing King Arthur - so you can't see the flaws and the logical conclusions.

Which is actually fine. I'm happy for you to believe whatever you want to believe.

But how much of this believing in something came from firsthand witnessing? Certainly there are people who believe in all sorts of things, and will die for them, things which cannot be reconciled, but did they arrive at this belief from firsthand witness? If so, then they are either delusional to the point of hallucination, or their beliefs are true.

Anyway, GnI, I have to disagree. That is, I don't think you're happy for me to believe whatever I want, I think you find belief in Christianity to be disagreeable. Saint James, Christ's brother, is attested to as a martyr in Josephus (and that's not considered an interpolation by scholars), so it's pretty sound to say he was an historical character. Now, really, is there any historical brother of Arthur who died for the Arthur stories?

I will agree that I'm not objective. I don't weigh the Resurrection in terms of probability, which would be the objective approach. I believe in the Resurrection not in those terms, I believe in it completely, 100%, I am so sure I am betting by entire existence on it, revolving my life around it and taking on obligations and forfeiting pleasures I otherwise could entirely forgo. However, now that we have all that out of the way, I think it's only fair to acknowledge that you aren't being objective either. There are objective deniers of the Resurrection, but you're not one of them.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well, at least we agree on something.

I'm pretty sure we agree on most straightforward doctrinal matters, it's the approach and mindset that's the issue, and that's entirely due to our differing traditions. Catholicism emphasizes reasoning and logic, Orthodoxy emphasizes Patristics.

Hence

And that's the difference between you and me, I'm not adopting anybody's view. I'm asserting a position I came to through deduction. I look at every source, and weigh their claims.

We never had scholasticism, you must remember. For someone to say, "The Church Fathers said this, but I hold to my position because of deduction," is completely disagreeable. This is why some of us (including Dostoevsky) saw Catholicism not as the antithesis of Reformation theology, but as the mother.

Then if you won't listen to scholastic approach, perhaps you'll listen to St. Jerome. From his commentary on Ecclesiastes, specifically 1:18

"The more anyone has attained wisdom, the more he is angered at being subjected to vices being so far away from the virtues that he is pursing... for that reason, he who adds wisdom adds grief and is saddened by unhappiness in accordance with God's will."

And while this is absolutely correct, he admits that it is not onlycorrect. "Unless perhaps it should be also be undersood to mean that the wise man grieves that wisdom is hidden in such a secret and deep place... but is only forth coming through, as it were, torments and intolerable labor, with constant meditation and study."

There are multiple ways to view this lesson, multiple avenues by which one might apply it, but "Solomon's" meaning is clear: increasing wisdom increases grief.

It should be mentioned however that the conditions have changed between the time "Solomon" wrote this, and Jerome's extrapolation on it. As you have said the Early Fathers would say it is good for a man to be so vexed, as it convicts us of our sin. And that would not be an inappropriate assertion. What I am getting at however, is that "Solomon" would not consider it in that way, at that time, specifically because Christ had not come. In Solomon's time, everybody met the same fate:

Ecclesiastes 9: "Everything that confronts them 2 is vanity,[a] since the same fate comes to all, to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil,[b] to the clean and the unclean, to those who sacrifice and those who do not sacrifice. As are the good, so are the sinners; those who swear are like those who shun an oath. 3 This is an evil in all that happens under the sun, that the same fate comes to everyone. Everything that confronts them 2 is vanity,[a] since the same fate comes to all, to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil,[b] to the clean and the unclean, to those who sacrifice and those who do not sacrifice. As are the good, so are the sinners; those who swear are like those who shun an oath. 3 This is an evil in all that happens under the sun, that the same fate comes to everyone."

To the Israelites, everyone went to Sheol, the good and the bad. Nobody, dwelt with the Lord. Thus, when "Solomon" says "4 But whoever is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost." He is referring to the living here on Earth.

Fast forward 700 years to Jerome's time, Christ had repaired the gap between Creator and creation, and man once again would dwell with the Lord. Thus, we have new meaning to "Solomon's" works, because now we can be more than simply alive on Earth, we can be Alive in Christ. Truly then who is joined with the Living, has hope.

So while in "Solomon's time", giving ones self to the vexation of wisdom, was pointless, or as he put it "chasing after the wind." In Jerome's time, such vexation is an important goal.



This has been my point from the beginning, and maybe I'm just being pedantic, but we should not attempt to override the original meaning of the text, and go so far to say that "Solomon" was teaching about something that would come hundreds of years later. And I don't believe Jerome does this, as he never attempts to claim to speak for Solomon, rather he extrapolates on Solomon's words form the Christian context. He builds, on Solomon's teachings in a new way. By acknowledging that the context and meanings of the Old Testament scriptures meant at the time they were written, we get not only a firmer foundation and better understanding of Christ's ministerial life, but we also illuminate the teachings of the Fathers to a greater degree.

[Nioya]

How do you guys pray?

[Nioya]

I usually begin with some kind of contemplation of God. Usually relates to God's love. That's the basic one. Then half the time I'll try to contemplate the metaphysical qualities of God; I use to do this every time. Then I just list off my requests, conversate with God. At the end I'll say the Lord's Prayer or some Hail Marys. I ask for the intercession of different saints.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm going to lob a minor hand grenade into the thread, knowing full well that we have a range of opinions on these events.

The centenaries of the Russian Revolutions of 1917 are almost upon us.

The February Revolution of 1917 took place from 22 February - 3 March [OS] / 7 - 16 March [NS]; the Tsar abdicated on the 15 of March [2 March OS].

The start of the October Revolution of 1917, 25 October [OS] / 7 November [NS], is still some months away.

A little-known (to the non-Orthodox) side effect of these revolutions was the restoration of the office of Patriarch of Moscow. Peter the Great had suppressed the patriarchate, replacing it with a synodical form of government. With Russia in chaos, on the 5th of November 1917 (not sure offhand if that's OS or NS), the Russian Orthodox Church elected Tikhon, Metropolitan of Moscow, as the first Patriarch of Moscow since Adrian (1690-1700).


Some of us take the position that it's a tragedy that Bolshevism and Orthodoxy found themselves in opposition given what are perceived as ultimately compatible goals.

Others, including myself, believe that the overt and ideologically explicit militant atheism of the Bolsheviks, which directly led to the slaughter of tens - likely hundreds - of thousands of Orthodox Christians (including, acknowledging this openly, several members of my wife's family) and the widespread destruction of Church property, means that Bolshevism and Christianity are wholly incompatible, and that - from the perspective of the Church - the tragedy of the Russian Revolutions lies in a very different direction.

So my question is:

How do we, as Christians - Orthodox or otherwise - remember the Russian Revolutions of 1917?

[Nordengrund]

I usually begin with some kind of contemplation of God. Usually relates to God's love. That's the basic one. Then half the time I'll try to contemplate the metaphysical qualities of God; I use to do this every time. Then I just list off my requests, conversate with God. At the end I'll say the Lord's Prayer or some Hail Marys. I ask for the intercession of different saints.

I usually talk directly to God and start off confessing my sins and apologizing for sinning. Then I tell Him whatever has been bothering me and to help me see it through. I then meditate for a little bit before concluding the prayer.

[Luminesa]

I'm going to lob a minor hand grenade into the thread, knowing full well that we have a range of opinions on these events.

The centenaries of the Russian Revolutions of 1917 are almost upon us.

The February Revolution of 1917 took place from 22 February - 3 March [OS] / 7 - 16 March [NS]; the Tsar abdicated on the 15 of March [2 March OS].

The start of the October Revolution of 1917, 25 October [OS] / 7 November [NS], is still some months away.

A little-known (to the non-Orthodox) side effect of these revolutions was the restoration of the office of Patriarch of Moscow. Peter the Great had suppressed the patriarchate, replacing it with a synodical form of government. With Russia in chaos, on the 5th of November 1917 (not sure offhand if that's OS or NS), the Russian Orthodox Church elected Tikhon, Metropolitan of Moscow, as the first Patriarch of Moscow since Adrian (1690-1700).


Some of us take the position that it's a tragedy that Bolshevism and Orthodoxy found themselves in opposition given what are perceived as ultimately compatible goals.

Others, including myself, believe that the overt and ideologically explicit militant atheism of the Bolsheviks, which directly led to the slaughter of tens - likely hundreds - of thousands of Orthodox Christians (including, acknowledging this openly, several members of my wife's family) and the widespread destruction of Church property, means that Bolshevism and Christianity are wholly incompatible, and that - from the perspective of the Church - the tragedy of the Russian Revolutions lies in a very different direction.

So my question is:

How do we, as Christians - Orthodox or otherwise - remember the Russian Revolutions of 1917?

I know next to nothing about it, but I know it was the beginning of a lot of turmoil and violence in Russia, as you stated. As for your wife's family, I am so sorry that they suffered so much.

[Luminesa]

I usually begin with some kind of contemplation of God. Usually relates to God's love. That's the basic one. Then half the time I'll try to contemplate the metaphysical qualities of God; I use to do this every time. Then I just list off my requests, conversate with God. At the end I'll say the Lord's Prayer or some Hail Marys. I ask for the intercession of different saints.

Which saints are your favs?

[Nioya]

I usually begin with some kind of contemplation of God. Usually relates to God's love. That's the basic one. Then half the time I'll try to contemplate the metaphysical qualities of God; I use to do this every time. Then I just list off my requests, conversate with God. At the end I'll say the Lord's Prayer or some Hail Marys. I ask for the intercession of different saints.

Which saints are your favs?

The theotokos, mother Mary, the Virgin Mary, St Francis, maybe I'll st Dominic and st Ignatius. And as with some traditions, I ask for the intercession of my deceased brother.

[Constantinopolis]

I'm going to lob a minor hand grenade into the thread, knowing full well that we have a range of opinions on these events.

The centenaries of the Russian Revolutions of 1917 are almost upon us.

The February Revolution of 1917 took place from 22 February - 3 March [OS] / 7 - 16 March [NS]; the Tsar abdicated on the 15 of March [2 March OS].

The start of the October Revolution of 1917, 25 October [OS] / 7 November [NS], is still some months away.

A little-known (to the non-Orthodox) side effect of these revolutions was the restoration of the office of Patriarch of Moscow. Peter the Great had suppressed the patriarchate, replacing it with a synodical form of government. With Russia in chaos, on the 5th of November 1917 (not sure offhand if that's OS or NS), the Russian Orthodox Church elected Tikhon, Metropolitan of Moscow, as the first Patriarch of Moscow since Adrian (1690-1700).


Some of us take the position that it's a tragedy that Bolshevism and Orthodoxy found themselves in opposition given what are perceived as ultimately compatible goals.

Others, including myself, believe that the overt and ideologically explicit militant atheism of the Bolsheviks, which directly led to the slaughter of tens - likely hundreds - of thousands of Orthodox Christians (including, acknowledging this openly, several members of my wife's family) and the widespread destruction of Church property, means that Bolshevism and Christianity are wholly incompatible, and that - from the perspective of the Church - the tragedy of the Russian Revolutions lies in a very different direction.

So my question is:

How do we, as Christians - Orthodox or otherwise - remember the Russian Revolutions of 1917?

We should remember the Russian Revolutions of 1917 as the defining event of the 20th century, which was directly or indirectly responsible for a large part of the economic, political and social improvements in people's lives across the world for the past 100 years.

It is no exaggeration to say that all of the improvements in ordinary people's lives since the Industrial Revolution were ultimately due to one of two causes: either technological advancement, or socialism (broadly defined, including social democracy). And with the benefit of hindsight, we can see now that it was the existence of the Soviet Union, its example and influence, that was a vital driving force behind practically all socialist and social democratic victories of the 20th century. Including the victories of those left-wing movements that were explicitly anti-Soviet. Clement Attlee may have hated Stalin, but he would have never become prime minister without the Red Army's victory. And the left has suffered nothing but defeats ever since the USSR ceased to exist. We have lost our champion, and we are but a shell of what we used to be. We should have done a better job of defending that champion while it still existed.

Those people - and there were many of them - who believed that you could support the cause of the poor and the oppressed and the working class while opposing the USSR, were wrong. Not just Marxism-Leninism, but also democratic socialism and social democracy, were shattered by the fall of the USSR. In politics, you don't always get to pick whatever allies you want. Sometimes your destiny is tied to the political destiny of someone like Stalin, monstrous though he may be, whether you like it or not.

You yourself, Arch, have repeatedly reminded me not to condemn the iconoclast Byzantine emperors Leo III and Constantine V too much - despite the fact that they persecuted and killed Orthodox Christians and definitely held an "ideology" that was incompatible with Orthodoxy - because, at the same time, they also saved the Empire and all of Christendom from being conquered by Islam.

And you are right about that, however much I hate to admit it. In the 8th century, the future of Orthodox Christianity depended on the military success of the iconoclast emperors who personally hated and persecuted Orthodox Christianity.

Likewise, in the 20th century, the future of the poor and oppressed people of the world depended on the military and political successes of the Soviet Union. The USSR stood against capitalism as the iconoclast emperors stood against Islam.

As Christians, we should always be on the side of the poor, on the side of the oppressed, on the side of the working people of the world who are exploited and mistreated by the rich and powerful. So I celebrate the Russian Revolutions of 1917 as the birth of the strongest champion that the poor people of the world have ever had in all of history, despite the fact that this champion was also, tragically and foolishly, anti-Christian.

[Diopolis]

I'm going to lob a minor hand grenade into the thread, knowing full well that we have a range of opinions on these events.

The centenaries of the Russian Revolutions of 1917 are almost upon us.

The February Revolution of 1917 took place from 22 February - 3 March [OS] / 7 - 16 March [NS]; the Tsar abdicated on the 15 of March [2 March OS].

The start of the October Revolution of 1917, 25 October [OS] / 7 November [NS], is still some months away.

A little-known (to the non-Orthodox) side effect of these revolutions was the restoration of the office of Patriarch of Moscow. Peter the Great had suppressed the patriarchate, replacing it with a synodical form of government. With Russia in chaos, on the 5th of November 1917 (not sure offhand if that's OS or NS), the Russian Orthodox Church elected Tikhon, Metropolitan of Moscow, as the first Patriarch of Moscow since Adrian (1690-1700).


Some of us take the position that it's a tragedy that Bolshevism and Orthodoxy found themselves in opposition given what are perceived as ultimately compatible goals.

Others, including myself, believe that the overt and ideologically explicit militant atheism of the Bolsheviks, which directly led to the slaughter of tens - likely hundreds - of thousands of Orthodox Christians (including, acknowledging this openly, several members of my wife's family) and the widespread destruction of Church property, means that Bolshevism and Christianity are wholly incompatible, and that - from the perspective of the Church - the tragedy of the Russian Revolutions lies in a very different direction.

So my question is:

How do we, as Christians - Orthodox or otherwise - remember the Russian Revolutions of 1917?

I've come to believe that few ideologies are wholly incompatible at their essentials simply because of the extent of human freedom- nothing's stopping you from agreeing with Marx about some things and Hitler about others, even if both men would reject your syncretism. Usually we find ideologies to be incompatible as expressed, and I'll submit that that's what happened here. It isn't as though the state churches weren't doing anything wrong- it also isn't as though the Bolsheviks weren't. But the Bolsheviks spoke to a real need in their society: its injustice, arbitrary exertion of power, stasis and conservatism, the excesses of poverty and the insufficient response of the state churches. They gave, not a perfect answer, not even, really, a sufficient answer, but in any case clearly a better answer. Meanwhile in their own stereotypes and preconceptions they were unable to see the value not just of religion, but also of the individual and of freedom. It often happens that when we know we're justified about our central assertion, we feel justified in any kind of violence- justified in any kind of authoritarianism to protect a revolution- justified in not understanding our enemies- justified in not discerning friend from foe, in ignoring shades of gray. So to the Bolsheviks, poverty became the only oppression, through which everything else could be viewed. To the radfems, sexism is that. But what people like the catholic theologian Elizabeth Fiorenza understood is that there's no one focal point of injustice in the world- we take as our focal point our own position. It seems to be the case that inevitably, whenever we believe that the legitimacy of our own grievances frees us from the moral obligation of acting on the same terms as those on which we demand the powerful act, we become new oppressors to an unseen class of victims.

The Christians were right about some important things, but were also seriously wrong about some things- the same can be said of the Bolsheviks. They were at cross purposes because the most important things the Bolsheviks were right about, the Christians were wrong about, and the most important things the Christians were right about, the Bolsheviks were wrong about.

Oh please. The bolsheviks were a tiny fringe group empowered by wartime starvation and Nicholai II's leniency, not chronic problems in the status quo(which did exist- tsarist russia is no one's paradise).

[Diopolis]

Oh please. The bolsheviks were a tiny fringe group empowered by wartime starvation and Nicholai II's leniency, not chronic problems in the status quo(which did exist- tsarist russia is no one's paradise).

You seriously don't think poverty is a chronic problem in the status quo?

Where on earth did that come from?

[Diopolis]

Where on earth did that come from?

Someone's in a mood.

I reread my post several times and I seriously have no idea. It doesn't even seem like it should qualify as a straw man because it has no bearing on what I posted.

[Grand Calvert]

I usually begin with some kind of contemplation of God. Usually relates to God's love. That's the basic one. Then half the time I'll try to contemplate the metaphysical qualities of God; I use to do this every time. Then I just list off my requests, conversate with God. At the end I'll say the Lord's Prayer or some Hail Marys. I ask for the intercession of different saints.

I usually talk directly to God and start off confessing my sins and apologizing for sinning. Then I tell Him whatever has been bothering me and to help me see it through. I then meditate for a little bit before concluding the prayer.

I'm pretty much the same. Though recently I've been structuring mine in a similar manner as the Lord's Prayer (which I still don't know by heart unfortunately )

[Nordengrund]

I usually talk directly to God and start off confessing my sins and apologizing for sinning. Then I tell Him whatever has been bothering me and to help me see it through. I then meditate for a little bit before concluding the prayer.

I'm pretty much the same. Though recently I've been structuring mine in a similar manner as the Lord's Prayer (which I still don't know by heart unfortunately )

Neither do I.

[Pasong Tirad]

I usually begin with some kind of contemplation of God. Usually relates to God's love. That's the basic one. Then half the time I'll try to contemplate the metaphysical qualities of God; I use to do this every time. Then I just list off my requests, conversate with God. At the end I'll say the Lord's Prayer or some Hail Marys. I ask for the intercession of different saints.

Sometimes I pray the normal Catholic way. Most of the time, however, I offer my daily work to Him - living and working for the betterment of the world is my prayer.

[Constantinopolis]

Oh please. The bolsheviks were a tiny fringe group empowered by wartime starvation and Nicholai II's leniency, not chronic problems in the status quo(which did exist- tsarist russia is no one's paradise).

Yes and no. The Bolsheviks in particular, as an organization, were indeed a tiny fringe group. But the broader revolutionary socialist movement in general was massive and widespread.

And that broader revolutionary socialist movement agreed with the Bolsheviks on their condemnation of Tsarism and capitalism, and also agreed with the Bolsheviks that a working class revolution was needed to bring about socialism. They only disagreed about the proper strategy for carrying out such a revolution.

So the Bolsheviks were only tiny and fringe in 1917 because the other revolutionary socialists had most of the popular support. But they were able to grow extremely quickly by getting a large part of the membership of the other factions to come to the Bolshevik side once it became clear that their strategy was superior.