Pope says communists are closet Christians

a reply to: ketsuko

Except no one is trying to take your sandwich. Communism works by making sure you both have sandwiches to begin with.

In terms of Communism and how it's seen or interpreted, that might have been something I should have addressed in my OP.

I think, on paper and in 19th century terms, the ideaology that formed into Soviet Communism was probably among the best forms of Government ever thought up by man. Unfortunately, it did what systems based on it have done often enough since to end up in police states in the end. The original ideas assumed decent and honorable men leading the whole thing. It's rarely, if ever actually happened and in reality for how things have gone under those systems that have come to define communism has all too often included the early demise of millions of people. It's become a repeating pattern, really.

Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), also called (1925–52) All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Russian Kommunisticheskaya Partiya Sovetskogo Soyuza, or Vsesoyuznaya Kommunisticheskaya Partiya (Bolshevikov), the major political party of Russia and the Soviet Union from the Russian Revolution of October 1917 to 1991.e

Source: Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU)

With more than 80 million members, the CCP is the largest political party in the world. It is a monolithic, monopolistic party that dominates the political life of China. It is the major policy-making body in China, and it sees that the central, provincial, and local organs of government carry out those policies.

Source: Chinese Communist Party (CCP)

We can say from the West that they weren't or, in China's case, aren't what they say themselves they are .. but they seem quite confident in how they've come to own the system and politics of it.

The constant message of Pope Francis is that there is nothing communist or socialist about asking for people to make responsible, sometimes selfless decisions with their wealth and power. Instead, it is very Christian to concern oneself with the plight of those less fortunate.

Being wealthy, conservative, and successful does not itself equate to being right.

We would do well to pay attention.

S&F!

I am going to define communism as a society where the top guy gets exactly the same pay as the guy on the bottom.

IT IS NOT POLITICAL PARTY BASED ... IT IS ECONOMIC!

The USSR was not economically communist ... their cosmonauts got different levels of PAY! [I was reading up on cosmonauts and found that one of them earned MORE pay than Gagarin did! ]

NK is not economically conmmunist ... Kim Jong Un doesn't live on the same stuff that the lowest of the low in NK live on.

Not even modern day China is communist!

Show me one real communist nation on the planet ... and prove that please!

As for the Popes comments ... I am not catholic ... but I know many catholics and I shall ask them personally what they think about the Popes comments.

I have no idea how people let them use buzz words to pretend a portion of humanity is evil.

Communist, unions, socialist corporations, liberals and conservatives, none of these things are inherently evil. All depend on who you put in charge...... Don't be a sheeple and allow them to think for you!

He rubs elbows and meets with many people from many countries ... some of them communist. It is entirely possible that the people he meets with from communist countries express to him that they are indeed Christian but can't say so because it would kill their careers or because they would be killed off.

ALL communists aren't closet christians. But it wouldn't surprise me if he ran across some who expressed those opinions to him while in private meetings.

Pope is right.

I'm a closeted Christian. In public I wear my solipsist hat.

originally posted by: ketsuko
There is a vast difference between taking care of the poor voluntarily which we all should do or try to do as best we can, and having things stolen from us and given to others and having that called "taking care of the poor."

How did you arrive at the conclusion you 'owned' what was taken 'from you'? According to what and whom?

And how do you define ownership?

Also, do you believe taxation is theft?

originally posted by: DietJoke
S&F!

I am going to define communism as a society where the top guy gets exactly the same pay as the guy on the bottom.

IT IS NOT POLITICAL PARTY BASED ... IT IS ECONOMIC!

The USSR was not economically communist ... their cosmonauts got different levels of PAY! [I was reading up on cosmonauts and found that one of them earned MORE pay than Gagarin did!

]

NK is not economically conmmunist ... Kim Jong Un doesn't live on the same stuff that the lowest of the low in NK live on.

Not even modern day China is communist!

Show me one real communist nation on the planet ... and prove that please!

As for the Popes comments ... I am not catholic ... but I know many catholics and I shall ask them personally what they think about the Popes comments.

USSR was state capitalism. And so was FDR's new deal and the USA right after world war II.

Of course, right wingers will try and refute this.

I don't know why it should be so shocking. If the Bible (NT) is any kind of true historical account of a real being... Jesus was a Socialist of the Communist variety.

ETA: And not all Communists are atheists.

originally posted by: Kali74
I don't know why it should be so shocking. If the Bible (NT) is any kind of true historical account of a real being... Jesus was a Socialist of the Communist variety.

ETA: And not all Communists are atheists.

But all atheists are communists? Or so some here seem to believe.

originally posted by: ketsuko
There is a vast difference between taking care of the poor voluntarily which we all should do or try to do as best we can, and having things stolen from us and given to others and having that called "taking care of the poor."

Obama tried to tell us the same thing by using the example of the child with the sandwich whose teacher took the sandwich away and gave half of it to a child who had no sandwich. This is not taking care of the poor. The teacher engaged in theft and the child with the sandwich learned only resentment and not how to fell compassion for the child who had no sandwich. The child without sandwich learned only that he needed to depend on the teacher to give him part of the sandwich from the child who the sandwich whom he now resents for having more than he does.

Neither child learned anything about actually sharing or compassion or gratitude which is when the child with the sandwich takes his own sandwich and gives half of it to other child on his own because he notices the other child has no sandwich and needs some.

My husband also makes the excellent point that what the Pope said is why the Founders wanted there to be a wall of separation between the Church and the state.

Star for an amazingly well put post--succinct, simple, and to the point. Hat's off to you.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ketsuko

In communism the teacher halves the sandwich and passes half to the hungry child who has nothing. In Christianity, the child with the sandwich would never consider eating the whole sandwich unless everyone who needed to eat had some food, and would have halved it themselves with the same nett result.

The difference being free will, which is a key factor in Christianity, if one is willing to look into the core of the faith, and is not a key factor in the prevailing models of communism, currently at play in the world.

I would suggest that Communism, even the ideal, depends on the destruction of free will and individuality.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Propaganda for days.

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: Wrabbit2000
I've stated it on here hundreds of times before, Christ would have been considered a communist in today’s terms. He lived from a common purse along with his disciples. They depended on the charity of others as they traveled and taught. To this day many Christian religious organizations still lead a “communal” lifestyle, and some still take vows of poverty.

The problem here is that folks have been scared by the word “communism” because of the US's propaganda against the USSR through the cold war. The funny thing though is that the USSR wasn't communist, it was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. A Totalitarian Socialist Police State, not communism at all. True communism only really exists in some tribal societies where the community prospers and suffers as a whole, or in religious organization where people are devoted to a higher cause. In most other places greed and desire for power prevent a true communist community from ever developing.

Of course on the other side of the coin, Capitalism is based on greed and worldliness, exactly the things is says to avoid in the Bible.

Yeah, and no. Communism only works temporarily in small societies where people have given themselves up to a higher power. It sublimates the individual for the sake of the collective and even classic examples of communes eventually fail when individuals want to retain their individuality. And also they depend on external free markets to survive. (Otherwise who would the monastery sell their excellent communally brewed beer to?)

Capitalism is not based on "greed." It is based on a free and uncoerced exchange of goods and services. Yes, to some people any exonomy is "greedy," but capitalism in and itself is not about greed.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Capitalism is not based on "greed." It is based on a free and uncoerced exchange of goods and services. Yes, to some people any exonomy is "greedy," but capitalism in and itself is not about greed.

One could argue that it is.

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits.

I can easily see how such a practice might bring out the greed in people.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Yeah, and no. Communism only works temporarily in small societies where people have given themselves up to a higher power.

It also works in tribal societies, such as the historic American Indians (obviously not the case so much today). As long as the tribe can be self sufficient, there is not much need for personal possessions, and those that do exist are ones that are made by the individual him/herself or bartered for with items that they crafted within the community. Those societies existed for thousands of years before we ever came over here bringing our commerce into the picture. Once we did that, it all but destroyed the Indian culture. It can be argued that is how all ancient societies existed at one point.

As a matter of fact, since we are talking religion here anyway, if you go back to the psudeopigphal works of bible, you'll see this is how the original people of God lived. It was the line of Cain that started the concept of personal property. That's also why theft and murder became rampant in Cains people.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
It sublimates the individual for the sake of the collective and even classic examples of communes eventually fail when individuals want to retain their individuality.

As I stated once selfishness enters the picture, if the society does not deal with it, it will destroy the community. Again if you study the bible you should realize that the majority of the commandments all deal with selfishness. Capitalism is nothing but an excuse to act in a selfish manner, “for the good of the business”. Communes that serve a higher calling, that have nothing for members to covet from each other, will not collapse. That is why there are religious communes that have now existed for thousands of years, such as the Augustinians or the Jesuits.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
And also they depend on external free markets to survive. (Otherwise who would the monastery sell their excellent communally brewed beer to?)

Today in the modern world, yes, it's impossible to produce all the goods required to live a modern existence, but they certain can go back to being self sufficient and give up many modern amenities. Back in the old times, such as you're talking about with the selling of goods, those goods were going back to the Roman Catholic Church, not necessarily to the commune itself. Those old monasteries used to farm their own food, raise their own animals, maintain their own buildings, etc...

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Capitalism is not based on "greed." It is based on a free and uncoerced exchange of goods and services. Yes, to some people any exonomy is "greedy," but capitalism in and itself is not about greed.

I'm going to disagree with you there.
There isn't the “free and fair” exchange of items under capitalism, it's all about exploiting and taking from the other guy for yourself. Now I'm not an economic expert of any type, so I could be a bit off base here.

It seems to me though that if I trade you $50 in meat for $50 in grain to feed my cattle, that is bartering.
If you, on the other hand, go buy up all the sources of grain, then drive up the price on all grain, and thereby all other products based on grain, simply to make yourself a profit while doing no actual work, that is capitalism. Capitalism gave us such wonderful things as Usury, speculation, and stock markets. BTW, there is a reason why Usury is outlawed in the bible...

Well the Pope can't say good things all the time!

I don't think that the goal of communism is to make everyone poor...
Ideally, communism should bring wealth, not riches, to 100% of the population.

And about religion, Marx wrote :

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

I wonder why Francis said something like this.

a reply to: defcon5

I wish I could give you an applause for this post. Can you give yourself one on my behalf??

Perfect post.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: NavyDoc

Capitalism is not based on "greed." It is based on a free and uncoerced exchange of goods and services. Yes, to some people any exonomy is "greedy," but capitalism in and itself is not about greed.

One could argue that it is.

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits.

I can easily see how such a practice might bring out the greed in people.

However, making a profit is not "greed." People also can be greedy in other systems: greedy for more accolades or awards, or better sexual partners. "Greed" can be seen in any society.

a reply to: theMediator
In order to have communism, as we were talking about above, you have to have a society that is willing to sacrifice self for a higher calling. If you have one guy who believes that the highest goal is to live to please God, and is willing to live a simple selfless lifestyle, and you have another that worships self and does everything in a selfish manner, you cannot have a communist society. The wealthy guy would take advantage of the selfless one, and would take all goods and power for himself.

Marx simply tried to supplant God with the State. So everyone would be on the same page with worshiping the state, as there was no way to make everyone uniformly believe in a single selfless religion.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Thanks.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: defcon5

I wish I could give you an applause for this post. Can you give yourself one on my behalf??

Perfect post.

Agreed. That was very well stated and put things in to proper perspective.