Scientific Proof Of God

[Svartalf]

Actually, in the gospels some of Jesus' sayings are rather problematic... like when he advocates drowning paedophiles with a quernstone attached to their necks, or says that his followers should sell their cloaks to buy themselves swords... all the more problematic that most of his attitude is rather hippie like.

[rainbow]

Perhaps you have not absorbed the majority religious view that violence is abhorrent to a putative god...

Guess you are not familiar with Book of Revelation

I'm not talking about ancient religious writings, bible or otherwise. I'm talking about the majority of mainstream religions, where, with some exceptions, violence in generally abhorred by the actual people who are believers.

Apparently Nostrilanus doesn't follow the bibble.

Clearly we have one confused bunny here.

[Svartalf]

Well, we're in march, so of course it's mad as a march hare.

[Brian Peacock]

https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... olence.htm

"My answer is based on the American situation, but you will see that you can easily infer from it what applies to your own. These demonstrations are not confrontations when they remain within the framework of legality. But when they do so, they subject themselves to the institutionalized violence that autonomously determines the framework of legality and can restrict it to a suffocating minimum; for example, by applying laws such as those forbidding trespass on private or government property, interfering with traffic, disturbance of the peace, etc. Accordingly what was legal can become illegal from one minute to the next if a completely peaceful demonstration disturbs the peace or voluntarily or involuntarily trespasses on private property, and so on. In this situation confrontations with state power, with institutionalized violence, seem inevitable – unless opposition becomes a harmless ritual, a pacifier of conscience, and a star witness for the rights and freedoms available under the status quo. This was the experience of the civil rights movement: that the others practice the violence, that the others are the violence, and that against this violence legality is problematic from the very beginning. This will also be the experience of the student opposition as soon as the system feels threatened by it. And then the opposition is placed before the fatal decision: opposition as ritual event or opposition as resistance, i.e. civil disobedience."


The moment when Montreal student protestors stepped on the property of "Loto-Quebec" in 2012. Crossing the "red line" of government property:

indeed. As as society we make proceed about our business under the presumption that the law is just and fair and that the enactment and enforcement thereof is essentially balances and neutral. But how can this ever be the case when the law-givers and the law-enforcers gain absolute authority from the mere existence of laws while ceding their personal responsibility to the very laws they give and enforce? The law is not necessary for order, but it is necessary to enable some to have authority over others, and where such authorities the administration of the legal, justice, and carceral systems inevitably becomes a reflection of the arbitrary whims of the laws authors. Where societies are left to police themselves, by means of the Common Law if you will, order is maintained, disputes are settles, conflicts are resolved, and ill-deeds are punished in the common interest. Thus the law only becomes necessary where others desire to impose their will upon the common people, and in so doing to possess them and their lands, their resources, their labour, and where possible their bodies and their souls.

Anarchism:

"The name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government—harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being."

-- Peter Kropotkin

source: Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. Greaber, 1998 (PDF)

You see these issues quite clearly reflected in the work of Marcuse, but you fail to learn what he is teaching or follow it to its logical conclusion - most notably when it comes to the arbitrary enactment and enforcement of laws which exist, so it is said, to serve the capriciously punitive whim of the great, invisible law-giver in the sky. Why should we seek to throw off one kind of oppression only to make way for an even greater form of oppression? Why overthrow one tyrant simply to enthrone another? A good Marxist would recognise and understand the nonsense of such a position, and see it for what it really is.

[Brian Peacock]

Actually, in the gospels some of Jesus' sayings are rather problematic... like when he advocates drowning paedophiles with a quernstone attached to their necks, or says that his followers should sell their cloaks to buy themselves swords... all the more problematic that most of his attitude is rather hippie like.

Matthew 5:17. "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

[JimC]

Actually, in the gospels some of Jesus' sayings are rather problematic... like when he advocates drowning paedophiles with a quernstone attached to their necks, or says that his followers should sell their cloaks to buy themselves swords... all the more problematic that most of his attitude is rather hippie like.

Matthew 5:17. "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

One cannot expect mental stability from people with major delusional syndromes such as the possibly historical Jesus Christ...

[Svartalf]

Actually, in the gospels some of Jesus' sayings are rather problematic... like when he advocates drowning paedophiles with a quernstone attached to their necks, or says that his followers should sell their cloaks to buy themselves swords... all the more problematic that most of his attitude is rather hippie like.

Matthew 5:17. "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

and some prophets like ol' joshua were mass murderers plain and simple...

[Svartalf]

Actually, in the gospels some of Jesus' sayings are rather problematic... like when he advocates drowning paedophiles with a quernstone attached to their necks, or says that his followers should sell their cloaks to buy themselves swords... all the more problematic that most of his attitude is rather hippie like.

Matthew 5:17. "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

One cannot expect mental stability from people with major delusional syndromes such as the possibly historical Jesus Christ...

You seem to assume he genuinely believed himself to be the Messiah... he might just have been a tricksy false messiah, or maybe even it was his followers put him on that throne without asking if he wanted to sit there.

[superuniverse]

Marcuse advocates Revolution, and that entails mass destruction not only of the engines of repression, I.e., the institutions of repression, the banking system, private property, law and order, etc, but also those who benefit from them. If you can't see the hidden meaning behind his writings it is because he had to conceal their true intent to avoid persecution himself.

[superuniverse]

Even the FBI kept a large file on him accusing Marcuse of using the youth and the disillusioned as unknowing dupes to overthrow the establishment to install himself as an absolute intellectual dictator.

[superuniverse]

"Essay On Liberation Report | PDF" https://www.scribd.com/doc/36862177/Ess ... ion-Report

FBI report

Read the second to last sentence.

[Hermit]

Marcuse advocates Revolution, and that entails mass destruction not only of the engines of repression, I.e., the institutions of repression, the banking system, private property, law and order, etc, but also those who benefit from them. If you can't see the hidden meaning behind his writings it is because he had to conceal their true intent to avoid persecution himself.

I think you misunderstand Nostradamus and Marcuse. For them, violence is absolutely essential and liberating, for it is the only thing that can destroy the systems of oppression.

No. You do. It comes from not misreading Marcuse's essay, titled Repressive Tolerance. He wrote that

today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period-a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice.

Furthermore, you have totally missed what Marcuse regards as violent resistance. It is not literal violence - as in the violent destruction of property and doing harm to humans - per se. Instead he cites the passive resistance in India as an example of violent resistance. The violence he supports is metaphorical.

There, [in India] passive resistance was carried through on a massive scale, which disrupted, or threatened to disrupt, the economic life of the country. Quantity turns into quality: on such a scale, passive resistance is no longer passive–it ceases to be non-violent. The same holds true for the General Strike.

(Emphasis added)

[superuniverse]

"The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed."


And what happened in India is not as what Marcuse claims, and he knows it. For the British, India was no longer profitable as a colony, and this was the main reason why they left. Same can be said for the whole decolonization of Africa during the 20th century.

It had little to do with protests...

As for the general strike to be effective, it would have to be undertaken by millions of workers, something impossible under the prevailing status-quo.

[Brian Peacock]

Marcuse advocates Revolution, and that entails mass destruction not only of the engines of repression, I.e., the institutions of repression, the banking system, private property, law and order, etc, but also those who benefit from them. If you can't see the hidden meaning behind his writings it is because he had to conceal their true intent to avoid persecution himself.

I understand this quite well actually. Marcuse thought that dismantling the structures which maintain and enforce the contemporary power dynamic was a necessary first step towards the freedom and harmony of an anarchist utopia. In this regard he was building on the work of Goldmann, Luxembourg, Kropotkin and others from the previous generation.

My point is, that while you would also like to dismantle the structures which maintain and enforce the contemporary power dynamic, you do so only in order to replace it with a greater power and to impose an even more unbalanced power dynamic, one upon which the contemporary power dynamics are modelled while appearing insignificant in comparison. This greater engine of repression is the one which turns relentlessly to forward the arbitrary whims of that capriciously malicious, invisible law-giver in the sky.

Why not abandon the sky tyrant along with all the others?

[Hermit]

"The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed."

And what happened in India is not as what Marcuse claims, and he knows it. For the British, India was no longer profitable as a colony, and this was the main reason why they left. Same can be said for the whole decolonization of Africa during the 20th century.

It had little to do with protests...

As for the general strike to be effective, it would have to be undertaken by millions of workers, something impossible under the prevailing status-quo.

Marcuse did not advocate a revolution that entails mass destruction of private property, law and order, and those who benefit from them. He explicitly mentioned India, and he explicitly defined violence in terms of passive resistance on a massive scale as well as general strikes. The purported hidden meaning is a figment of your imagination.