Can you be religious and pro science and technology?

[BreezeWood]

You've repeatedly posted things like "The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible..." That's more than a simple vendetta between you and another member. Again, you are being dishonest. Your previous post quoting the Russian and this current claim that Gnostics were socialists "in the worst sense of the word" also belie your claim that your hatred for Gnostics is simply a disagreement with BreezeWood.

Not sure what you think you have found. These people Darwinized themselves out of existence through their own fault. They were socialists in the worst sense of the word. What part of their leaders were above sin and could do whatever they wanted did you not understand?

Additionally, your history is wrong. Gnosticism goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. At least that first 300 year period where all the Christian sects began condensing. Certainly far older than Protestantism which is, indeed, a mere 500 years old. There were many variations of Christianity besides Gnosticism and the current form of Trinity Christianity. Like modern Christian denominations, Gnosticism has both evolved and splintered into different beliefs. Although I do agree with the general principle of "fact-based knowledge", there are Gnostics that have as many off-the-wall beliefs as Young Earthers.

You must have missed where I wrote, "They lived over 800 years ago and had ties back to further than that. " So again, I'm not sure what you think you have found.

As shown previously, there are dozens, if not thousands, of Christian denominations around the planet. Most adhere to the form which survived early prosecution by Paul's church, the Catholics, and the Spanish Inquisition, which forced all to follow their beliefs or face execution as heretics. You display the same hatred for Gnostics as the Spanish 500 years ago. Do you consider them to be "good Christians"?

I couldn't tell you, I haven't studied them. I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

.

I couldn't tell you, I haven't studied them. I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

The Criminal History of the Papacy - 1

"Many of the popes were men of the most abandoned lives. Some were magicians (occultists); others were noted for sedition, war, slaughter and profligacy of manners, for avarice and simony. Others were not even members of Christ, but the basest of criminals and enemies of all godliness. Some were children of their father, the Devil; most were men of blood; some were not even priests. Others were heretics. If the pope be a heretic, he is ipso facto no pope."

And heretics they were, with many popes publicly admitting disbelief in the Gospel story. These facts are well known to Catholic historians who dishonestly tell their readers that the popes were virtuous and competent men with "soaring religious minds" (The Papacy, George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd, London, 1964). The reality of the matter is that they were intent only upon their own interests, not those of God, and cultivated a system of papal vice more assiduously than Catholic writers of Church history dare to reveal openly.


that's interesting you believe they were "Darwinized" out of existence when your own article refers to the crusaders "kill them all" historical notation ... they must have just been kidding. .

at any rate bing just as a clue maybe you might study your own 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion, and to think your views on the gnost's without study could have been any more refined than your lack of understanding of your own RCC ...

 

[ding]

You've repeatedly posted things like "The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible..." That's more than a simple vendetta between you and another member. Again, you are being dishonest. Your previous post quoting the Russian and this current claim that Gnostics were socialists "in the worst sense of the word" also belie your claim that your hatred for Gnostics is simply a disagreement with BreezeWood.

Not sure what you think you have found. These people Darwinized themselves out of existence through their own fault. They were socialists in the worst sense of the word. What part of their leaders were above sin and could do whatever they wanted did you not understand?

Additionally, your history is wrong. Gnosticism goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. At least that first 300 year period where all the Christian sects began condensing. Certainly far older than Protestantism which is, indeed, a mere 500 years old. There were many variations of Christianity besides Gnosticism and the current form of Trinity Christianity. Like modern Christian denominations, Gnosticism has both evolved and splintered into different beliefs. Although I do agree with the general principle of "fact-based knowledge", there are Gnostics that have as many off-the-wall beliefs as Young Earthers.

You must have missed where I wrote, "They lived over 800 years ago and had ties back to further than that. " So again, I'm not sure what you think you have found.

As shown previously, there are dozens, if not thousands, of Christian denominations around the planet. Most adhere to the form which survived early prosecution by Paul's church, the Catholics, and the Spanish Inquisition, which forced all to follow their beliefs or face execution as heretics. You display the same hatred for Gnostics as the Spanish 500 years ago. Do you consider them to be "good Christians"?

I couldn't tell you, I haven't studied them. I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

.

I couldn't tell you, I haven't studied them. I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

The Criminal History of the Papacy - 1

"Many of the popes were men of the most abandoned lives. Some were magicians (occultists); others were noted for sedition, war, slaughter and profligacy of manners, for avarice and simony. Others were not even members of Christ, but the basest of criminals and enemies of all godliness. Some were children of their father, the Devil; most were men of blood; some were not even priests. Others were heretics. If the pope be a heretic, he is ipso facto no pope."

And heretics they were, with many popes publicly admitting disbelief in the Gospel story. These facts are well known to Catholic historians who dishonestly tell their readers that the popes were virtuous and competent men with "soaring religious minds" (The Papacy, George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd, London, 1964). The reality of the matter is that they were intent only upon their own interests, not those of God, and cultivated a system of papal vice more assiduously than Catholic writers of Church history dare to reveal openly.


that's interesting you believe they were "Darwinized" out of existence when your own article refers to the crusaders "kill them all" historical notation ... they must have just been kidding. .

at any rate bing just as a clue maybe you might study your own 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion, and to think your views on the gnost's without study could have been any more refined than your lack of understanding of your own RCC ...

That's because you don't recognize who the aggressor was and why that led to their demise. How could you? It doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[BreezeWood]

You've repeatedly posted things like "The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible..." That's more than a simple vendetta between you and another member. Again, you are being dishonest. Your previous post quoting the Russian and this current claim that Gnostics were socialists "in the worst sense of the word" also belie your claim that your hatred for Gnostics is simply a disagreement with BreezeWood.

Not sure what you think you have found. These people Darwinized themselves out of existence through their own fault. They were socialists in the worst sense of the word. What part of their leaders were above sin and could do whatever they wanted did you not understand?

Additionally, your history is wrong. Gnosticism goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. At least that first 300 year period where all the Christian sects began condensing. Certainly far older than Protestantism which is, indeed, a mere 500 years old. There were many variations of Christianity besides Gnosticism and the current form of Trinity Christianity. Like modern Christian denominations, Gnosticism has both evolved and splintered into different beliefs. Although I do agree with the general principle of "fact-based knowledge", there are Gnostics that have as many off-the-wall beliefs as Young Earthers.

You must have missed where I wrote, "They lived over 800 years ago and had ties back to further than that. " So again, I'm not sure what you think you have found.

As shown previously, there are dozens, if not thousands, of Christian denominations around the planet. Most adhere to the form which survived early prosecution by Paul's church, the Catholics, and the Spanish Inquisition, which forced all to follow their beliefs or face execution as heretics. You display the same hatred for Gnostics as the Spanish 500 years ago. Do you consider them to be "good Christians"?

I couldn't tell you, I haven't studied them. I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

.

I couldn't tell you, I haven't studied them. I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

The Criminal History of the Papacy - 1

"Many of the popes were men of the most abandoned lives. Some were magicians (occultists); others were noted for sedition, war, slaughter and profligacy of manners, for avarice and simony. Others were not even members of Christ, but the basest of criminals and enemies of all godliness. Some were children of their father, the Devil; most were men of blood; some were not even priests. Others were heretics. If the pope be a heretic, he is ipso facto no pope."

And heretics they were, with many popes publicly admitting disbelief in the Gospel story. These facts are well known to Catholic historians who dishonestly tell their readers that the popes were virtuous and competent men with "soaring religious minds" (The Papacy, George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd, London, 1964). The reality of the matter is that they were intent only upon their own interests, not those of God, and cultivated a system of papal vice more assiduously than Catholic writers of Church history dare to reveal openly.


that's interesting you believe they were "Darwinized" out of existence when your own article refers to the crusaders "kill them all" historical notation ... they must have just been kidding. .

at any rate bing just as a clue maybe you might study your own 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion, and to think your views on the gnost's without study could have been any more refined than your lack of understanding of your own RCC ...

That's because you don't recognize who the aggressor was and why that led to their demise. How could you? It doesn't fit your narrative.

.

That's because you don't recognize who the aggressor was and why that led to their demise. How could you? It doesn't fit your narrative.

they all fit the narrative biblethumpers, bing ... you're the selective impersonator.

 

[kwc57]

I've been Southern Baptist for 59 years. I graduated from a Southern Baptist University with a degree in religion. I don't know any who are anti-science or technology. I know some who question a few of the current "theories" that others accept as hard "fact".

Good. Who do you think the "Young Earth Creationists" and those who take Bible literally are stemming their beliefs?

As you said, they are using a very literal reading of the Bible and drawing conclusions without studying the Bible in it's original languages and applying some critical thinking. I do believe God created the Earth and mankind. Does that mean a literal 6 days or 6 eons as the original language should be interpreted? Could an eon be a million years or a billion years? Science gives us clues to the age of Earth. Only if you use the literal interpretation of 6 days do you run afoul of science. My greater concern than people who haven't been trained in critical thinking and accept a literal reading of the Bible are the smug and arrogant scientists who dismiss religion out of hand, make fun of it and want to see it dead. They are so impressed with their intellectual prowess that they fail to see how small minded they really are. Science and religion can complement each other and are not the adversaries that people on both sides try to make them.

1) Who are "they"? Please be specific.

2) While I agree there are some who take the Bible, Koran or any other religious text literally, they also often cherry pick from it. What do you propose should be done other than simply accept it as "abnormal"?

3) Where you trained in "critical thinking"? Where and by whom? What do you suggest be done to teach others?

1) What more do you need to understand who they are? They are those who interpret the Bible literally. There isn't a membership into an organization. Being a Southern Baptist myself, I have seen the gamut of individual levels of belief and approaches to scripture. They are they.

2) Everyone cherry picks, even those who aren't literalists. Why do you want to "do something" about them?

3) I was taught to think critically by my teachers from kindergarten thru college as well as my parents and life in general. I am an analyst by trade. Critical thinking isn't difficult, it just has to be employed. I don't think critical thinking is being taught as it used to be. With government funding tied to standardized testing scores, teachers start teaching to the test rather than educating students. College academia has become so left leaning and the campuses so politically correct, they indoctrinate more than they educate. My son just graduated 2 years ago, so I was able to see it first hand in the discussions I had with him. Part of parenting is making sure your child has the skills they need to know to be productive and self sufficient. Hopefully education will do some of that, but you can't fully rely on outsourcing good parenting.

 

[ding]

You've repeatedly posted things like "The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible..." That's more than a simple vendetta between you and another member. Again, you are being dishonest. Your previous post quoting the Russian and this current claim that Gnostics were socialists "in the worst sense of the word" also belie your claim that your hatred for Gnostics is simply a disagreement with BreezeWood.

Not sure what you think you have found. These people Darwinized themselves out of existence through their own fault. They were socialists in the worst sense of the word. What part of their leaders were above sin and could do whatever they wanted did you not understand?

Additionally, your history is wrong. Gnosticism goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. At least that first 300 year period where all the Christian sects began condensing. Certainly far older than Protestantism which is, indeed, a mere 500 years old. There were many variations of Christianity besides Gnosticism and the current form of Trinity Christianity. Like modern Christian denominations, Gnosticism has both evolved and splintered into different beliefs. Although I do agree with the general principle of "fact-based knowledge", there are Gnostics that have as many off-the-wall beliefs as Young Earthers.

You must have missed where I wrote, "They lived over 800 years ago and had ties back to further than that. " So again, I'm not sure what you think you have found.

As shown previously, there are dozens, if not thousands, of Christian denominations around the planet. Most adhere to the form which survived early prosecution by Paul's church, the Catholics, and the Spanish Inquisition, which forced all to follow their beliefs or face execution as heretics. You display the same hatred for Gnostics as the Spanish 500 years ago. Do you consider them to be "good Christians"?

I couldn't tell you, I haven't studied them. I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

.

I couldn't tell you, I haven't studied them. I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

The Criminal History of the Papacy - 1

"Many of the popes were men of the most abandoned lives. Some were magicians (occultists); others were noted for sedition, war, slaughter and profligacy of manners, for avarice and simony. Others were not even members of Christ, but the basest of criminals and enemies of all godliness. Some were children of their father, the Devil; most were men of blood; some were not even priests. Others were heretics. If the pope be a heretic, he is ipso facto no pope."

And heretics they were, with many popes publicly admitting disbelief in the Gospel story. These facts are well known to Catholic historians who dishonestly tell their readers that the popes were virtuous and competent men with "soaring religious minds" (The Papacy, George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd, London, 1964). The reality of the matter is that they were intent only upon their own interests, not those of God, and cultivated a system of papal vice more assiduously than Catholic writers of Church history dare to reveal openly.


that's interesting you believe they were "Darwinized" out of existence when your own article refers to the crusaders "kill them all" historical notation ... they must have just been kidding. .

at any rate bing just as a clue maybe you might study your own 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion, and to think your views on the gnost's without study could have been any more refined than your lack of understanding of your own RCC ...

That's because you don't recognize who the aggressor was and why that led to their demise. How could you? It doesn't fit your narrative.

.

That's because you don't recognize who the aggressor was and why that led to their demise. How could you? It doesn't fit your narrative.

they all fit the narrative biblethumpers, bing ... you're the selective impersonator.

That doesn't even make any sense. No, not everyone fits your narrative. Your narrative is poorly laid out and nearly unintelligible. All you have are vague references and innuendo. Your narrative is subjective, biased and not supported by historical evidence. Your attack against Christianity and Christians is that of an attack by a rival religion. Specifically a hardliner. Which religion? You won't say. How you came about it? You won't say.

 

[BreezeWood]

You've repeatedly posted things like "The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible..." That's more than a simple vendetta between you and another member. Again, you are being dishonest. Your previous post quoting the Russian and this current claim that Gnostics were socialists "in the worst sense of the word" also belie your claim that your hatred for Gnostics is simply a disagreement with BreezeWood.

Not sure what you think you have found. These people Darwinized themselves out of existence through their own fault. They were socialists in the worst sense of the word. What part of their leaders were above sin and could do whatever they wanted did you not understand?

Additionally, your history is wrong. Gnosticism goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. At least that first 300 year period where all the Christian sects began condensing. Certainly far older than Protestantism which is, indeed, a mere 500 years old. There were many variations of Christianity besides Gnosticism and the current form of Trinity Christianity. Like modern Christian denominations, Gnosticism has both evolved and splintered into different beliefs. Although I do agree with the general principle of "fact-based knowledge", there are Gnostics that have as many off-the-wall beliefs as Young Earthers.

You must have missed where I wrote, "They lived over 800 years ago and had ties back to further than that. " So again, I'm not sure what you think you have found.

As shown previously, there are dozens, if not thousands, of Christian denominations around the planet. Most adhere to the form which survived early prosecution by Paul's church, the Catholics, and the Spanish Inquisition, which forced all to follow their beliefs or face execution as heretics. You display the same hatred for Gnostics as the Spanish 500 years ago. Do you consider them to be "good Christians"?

I couldn't tell you, I haven't studied them. I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

.

I couldn't tell you, I haven't studied them. I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

The Criminal History of the Papacy - 1

"Many of the popes were men of the most abandoned lives. Some were magicians (occultists); others were noted for sedition, war, slaughter and profligacy of manners, for avarice and simony. Others were not even members of Christ, but the basest of criminals and enemies of all godliness. Some were children of their father, the Devil; most were men of blood; some were not even priests. Others were heretics. If the pope be a heretic, he is ipso facto no pope."

And heretics they were, with many popes publicly admitting disbelief in the Gospel story. These facts are well known to Catholic historians who dishonestly tell their readers that the popes were virtuous and competent men with "soaring religious minds" (The Papacy, George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd, London, 1964). The reality of the matter is that they were intent only upon their own interests, not those of God, and cultivated a system of papal vice more assiduously than Catholic writers of Church history dare to reveal openly.


that's interesting you believe they were "Darwinized" out of existence when your own article refers to the crusaders "kill them all" historical notation ... they must have just been kidding. .

at any rate bing just as a clue maybe you might study your own 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion, and to think your views on the gnost's without study could have been any more refined than your lack of understanding of your own RCC ...

That's because you don't recognize who the aggressor was and why that led to their demise. How could you? It doesn't fit your narrative.

.

That's because you don't recognize who the aggressor was and why that led to their demise. How could you? It doesn't fit your narrative.

they all fit the narrative biblethumpers, bing ... you're the selective impersonator.

That doesn't even make any sense. No, not everyone fits your narrative. Your narrative is poorly laid out and nearly unintelligible. All you have are vague references and innuendo. Your narrative is subjective, biased and not supported by historical evidence. Your attack against Christianity and Christians is that of an attack by a rival religion. Specifically a hardliner. Which religion? You won't say. How you came about it? You won't say.

.

That doesn't even make any sense. No, not everyone fits your narrative.

they all fit the narrative biblethumpers, bing ... you're the selective impersonator.

you just suffer delusive cognition bing, when you think it suits your purpose ...

 

[ding]

Not sure what you think you have found. These people Darwinized themselves out of existence through their own fault. They were socialists in the worst sense of the word. What part of their leaders were above sin and could do whatever they wanted did you not understand?

You must have missed where I wrote, "They lived over 800 years ago and had ties back to further than that. " So again, I'm not sure what you think you have found.
I couldn't tell you, I haven't studied them. I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

.

I couldn't tell you, I haven't studied them. I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

The Criminal History of the Papacy - 1

"Many of the popes were men of the most abandoned lives. Some were magicians (occultists); others were noted for sedition, war, slaughter and profligacy of manners, for avarice and simony. Others were not even members of Christ, but the basest of criminals and enemies of all godliness. Some were children of their father, the Devil; most were men of blood; some were not even priests. Others were heretics. If the pope be a heretic, he is ipso facto no pope."

And heretics they were, with many popes publicly admitting disbelief in the Gospel story. These facts are well known to Catholic historians who dishonestly tell their readers that the popes were virtuous and competent men with "soaring religious minds" (The Papacy, George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd, London, 1964). The reality of the matter is that they were intent only upon their own interests, not those of God, and cultivated a system of papal vice more assiduously than Catholic writers of Church history dare to reveal openly.


that's interesting you believe they were "Darwinized" out of existence when your own article refers to the crusaders "kill them all" historical notation ... they must have just been kidding. .

at any rate bing just as a clue maybe you might study your own 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion, and to think your views on the gnost's without study could have been any more refined than your lack of understanding of your own RCC ...

That's because you don't recognize who the aggressor was and why that led to their demise. How could you? It doesn't fit your narrative.

.

That's because you don't recognize who the aggressor was and why that led to their demise. How could you? It doesn't fit your narrative.

they all fit the narrative biblethumpers, bing ... you're the selective impersonator.

That doesn't even make any sense. No, not everyone fits your narrative. Your narrative is poorly laid out and nearly unintelligible. All you have are vague references and innuendo. Your narrative is subjective, biased and not supported by historical evidence. Your attack against Christianity and Christians is that of an attack by a rival religion. Specifically a hardliner. Which religion? You won't say. How you came about it? You won't say.

.

That doesn't even make any sense. No, not everyone fits your narrative.

they all fit the narrative biblethumpers, bing ... you're the selective impersonator.

you just suffer delusive cognition bing, when you think it suits your purpose ...

That makes even less sense than your last comment. Are you trying to use Buddhist logic now?

 

[Divine Wind]

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

Your entire post was a quote from the same single source from the same single Russian. Have you not original thoughts of your own? Again, you have not explained your hatred of Gnostics with logic. Your choice, but I disagree with your choice.

 

[Divine Wind]

1) What more do you need to understand who they are? They are those who interpret the Bible literally. There isn't a membership into an organization. Being a Southern Baptist myself, I have seen the gamut of individual levels of belief and approaches to scripture. They are they.

2) Everyone cherry picks, even those who aren't literalists. Why do you want to "do something" about them?

3) I was taught to think critically by my teachers from kindergarten thru college as well as my parents and life in general. I am an analyst by trade. Critical thinking isn't difficult, it just has to be employed. I don't think critical thinking is being taught as it used to be. With government funding tied to standardized testing scores, teachers start teaching to the test rather than educating students. College academia has become so left leaning and the campuses so politically correct, they indoctrinate more than they educate. My son just graduated 2 years ago, so I was able to see it first hand in the discussions I had with him. Part of parenting is making sure your child has the skills they need to know to be productive and self sufficient. Hopefully education will do some of that, but you can't fully rely on outsourcing good parenting.

1) I'm not a mind reader. Text is one of the worst forms of communication as you should know. There are too many ways for words to be misinterpreted which could easily be avoided if one is sitting across the table from another over a cup of coffee.

2) Everyone focuses on different issues, but that is different from "cherry-picking". The message of Christ is a great message, but those who cherry-pick abuse and misuse that message. Do you really think anyone who preaches a message of hate or harm to others is spreading the word of Christ?

3) Humans are funny. Life is a progression. We tend to take two steps forward and one step back. So it goes. Is there a purpose to life or are we just meat computers reacting to biochemical programming with no meaning at all except to fuck as a means replicate ourselves for no observable purpose except to just "be"?

 

[Divine Wind]

That makes even less sense than your last comment. Are you trying to use Buddhist logic now?

Have you ever studied Buddhism? The difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament are like night and day. The philosophy and comments by Christ have a lot in common with Buddhism. Not identical, of course, but many philosophical similarities. Christ's comments about being One with God in John 10 is one of those instances.

It wouldn't surprise me that Christ had ventured east to India and/or Nepal in the years between age 12 and 33.

 

[there4eyeM]

Can you be religious and for a regime that tortures?

 

[Divine Wind]

Can you be religious and for a regime that tortures?

No. It's not Christian to torture someone even "to save lives".

Mark 8:35-36
For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

 

[there4eyeM]

Can you be religious and for a regime that tortures?

No. It's not Christian to torture someone even "to save lives".

Mark 8:35-36
For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Be careful; the government may be listening.

 

[ding]

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

Your entire post was a quote from the same single source from the same single Russian. Have you not original thoughts of your own? Again, you have not explained your hatred of Gnostics with logic. Your choice, but I disagree with your choice.

These are Shafarevich's references for the "The Socialism of the Heresies" chapter, so it is not based on a single source. Do you have any sources on this subject at all? And lastly, I don't hate the Cathars.

9. Ch. Hahn. Geschichte der Ketzer im Mittelalter, besonders im 11, 12 und 13 Jahrhundert, nach Quellen bearbeitet, 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1845-47.

10. J. Dollinger. Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters. Erster Theil. Geschichte der gnostisch-manichäischen Sekten. Munich, 1890.

11. S. Runciman. The Medieval Manichee. Cambridge, Mass., 1955.

12. J. J. Herzog. Abriss der gesamten Kirchengeschichte. Bd. I, Abt. 2. Die römisch-katholische Kirche des Mittelalters. Erlangen, 1890.

13. M. Beer. Allgemeine Geschichte des Sozialismus und der sozialen Kämpfe. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation, Vseobshchaia istoriia sotsializma i sotsial'noi bor'by, Moscow-Leningrad, 1927.) ,

14. H. Grundmann. Ketzergeschichte des Mittelalters. Gottingen, 1963.

15. M. Erbstösser and E. E. Werner. ldeologische Probleme des mittelalterlichen Plebejertums. Berlin, 1960.

16. T. Buttner and E. Werner. Circumcellionen und Adamiten. Berlin, 1959.

17. M. Erbstösser. Sozialreligiöse Strömungen im späten Mittelalter. Berlin, 1970.

18. Herbert Grundmann. Religiöse Bewegungen im Mittelalter. Berlin, 1935.

19. J. Macek. Tabor v gusitskom revoliutsionnom dvizhenii (Tabor in the Hussite Revolutionary Movement, in Russian; original in Czech), vol. 2. Moscow, 1959.

20. M. M. Smirin. Narodnaia reformatsiia Tomasa Miuntsera i velikaia krest'ianskaia voina (The Popular Reformation of Thomas Müntzer and the Great Peasant War, in Russian). Moscow, 1955.

21. J. Macek. Gusitskoe revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie (The Hussite Revolutionary Movement, in Russian; original in Czech). Moscow, 1954.

22. L. Ranke. Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation. Bd. II, Berlin, 1842.

23. F. Bezold. Geschichte der deutschen Reformation. Berlin, 1886.

24. L. Keller. Die Reformation und die älteren Reformparteien. Leipzig, 1885.

25. L. Keller. Johann von Staupitz und die Anfänge der Reformation. Leipzig, 1888.

26. L. Keller. Die Anfänge der Reformation und die Ketzerschulen. Berlin, 1897.

27. L. Müller. Der Kommunismus der mährischen Wiedertäufer. Leipzig, 1927.

28. T Müntzer. Sein Leben und seine Schriften. Ed. Otto H. Brandt. Jena, 1933.

29. L. Keller. Geschichte der Wiedertäufer und ihres Reichs zu Münster. Münster, 1888.

30. R. Barclay. The Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth. London, 1879.

31. W. D. Morris. The Christian Origins of Social Revolt. London, 1949.

32. A. L. Morton. The World of the Ranters. London, 1970.

33. E. Bernstein. Sozialismus und Demokratie in der grossen englischen Revolution. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation, Sotsializm i demokratiia v velikoi angliiskoi revoliutsii, Leningrad, 1924.)

34. G. Weingarten. Revolutionskirchen Englands. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation, Narodnaia reformatsiia v Anglii XVII v., Moscow, 1901.)

35. G. Winstanley. The Law of Freedom and Other Writings. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1973.

36. H. Hollorenshaw. The Levellers and the English Revolution. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation, Levellery i angliiskaia revoliutsiia, Moscow, 1947.)

37. J. Krone. Fra Dolcino und die Patarenen. Leipzig, 1844.

 

[Divine Wind]

Can you be religious and for a regime that tortures?

No. It's not Christian to torture someone even "to save lives".

Mark 8:35-36
For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Be careful; the government may be listening.

Let'em.

 

[Divine Wind]

These are Shafarevich's references for the "The Socialism of the Heresies" chapter, so it is not based on a single source. Do you have any sources on this subject at all? And lastly, I don't hate the Cathars.

9. Ch. Hahn. Geschichte der Ketzer im Mittelalter, besonders im 11, 12 und 13 Jahrhundert, nach Quellen bearbeitet, 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1845-47.

10. J. Dollinger. Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters. Erster Theil. Geschichte der gnostisch-manichäischen Sekten. Munich, 1890.

11. S. Runciman. The Medieval Manichee. Cambridge, Mass., 1955.

12. J. J. Herzog. Abriss der gesamten Kirchengeschichte. Bd. I, Abt. 2. Die römisch-katholische Kirche des Mittelalters. Erlangen, 1890.

13. M. Beer. Allgemeine Geschichte des Sozialismus und der sozialen Kämpfe. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation, Vseobshchaia istoriia sotsializma i sotsial'noi bor'by, Moscow-Leningrad, 1927.) ,

14. H. Grundmann. Ketzergeschichte des Mittelalters. Gottingen, 1963.

15. M. Erbstösser and E. E. Werner. ldeologische Probleme des mittelalterlichen Plebejertums. Berlin, 1960.

16. T. Buttner and E. Werner. Circumcellionen und Adamiten. Berlin, 1959.

17. M. Erbstösser. Sozialreligiöse Strömungen im späten Mittelalter. Berlin, 1970.

18. Herbert Grundmann. Religiöse Bewegungen im Mittelalter. Berlin, 1935.

19. J. Macek. Tabor v gusitskom revoliutsionnom dvizhenii (Tabor in the Hussite Revolutionary Movement, in Russian; original in Czech), vol. 2. Moscow, 1959.

20. M. M. Smirin. Narodnaia reformatsiia Tomasa Miuntsera i velikaia krest'ianskaia voina (The Popular Reformation of Thomas Müntzer and the Great Peasant War, in Russian). Moscow, 1955.

21. J. Macek. Gusitskoe revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie (The Hussite Revolutionary Movement, in Russian; original in Czech). Moscow, 1954.

22. L. Ranke. Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation. Bd. II, Berlin, 1842.

23. F. Bezold. Geschichte der deutschen Reformation. Berlin, 1886.

24. L. Keller. Die Reformation und die älteren Reformparteien. Leipzig, 1885.

25. L. Keller. Johann von Staupitz und die Anfänge der Reformation. Leipzig, 1888.

26. L. Keller. Die Anfänge der Reformation und die Ketzerschulen. Berlin, 1897.

27. L. Müller. Der Kommunismus der mährischen Wiedertäufer. Leipzig, 1927.

28. T Müntzer. Sein Leben und seine Schriften. Ed. Otto H. Brandt. Jena, 1933.

29. L. Keller. Geschichte der Wiedertäufer und ihres Reichs zu Münster. Münster, 1888.

30. R. Barclay. The Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth. London, 1879.

31. W. D. Morris. The Christian Origins of Social Revolt. London, 1949.

32. A. L. Morton. The World of the Ranters. London, 1970.

33. E. Bernstein. Sozialismus und Demokratie in der grossen englischen Revolution. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation, Sotsializm i demokratiia v velikoi angliiskoi revoliutsii, Leningrad, 1924.)

34. G. Weingarten. Revolutionskirchen Englands. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation, Narodnaia reformatsiia v Anglii XVII v., Moscow, 1901.)

35. G. Winstanley. The Law of Freedom and Other Writings. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1973.

36. H. Hollorenshaw. The Levellers and the English Revolution. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation, Levellery i angliiskaia revoliutsiia, Moscow, 1947.)

37. J. Krone. Fra Dolcino und die Patarenen. Leipzig, 1844.

Nonetheless, Gnosticism has existed for well over 1500 years and Socialism was a 18th Century construct out of a reaction to Capitalism. Why people want to mix religion, politics and economics is interesting to me, but also brings up the question of their motives.

 

[ding]

These are Shafarevich's references for the "The Socialism of the Heresies" chapter, so it is not based on a single source. Do you have any sources on this subject at all? And lastly, I don't hate the Cathars.

9. Ch. Hahn. Geschichte der Ketzer im Mittelalter, besonders im 11, 12 und 13 Jahrhundert, nach Quellen bearbeitet, 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1845-47.

10. J. Dollinger. Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters. Erster Theil. Geschichte der gnostisch-manichäischen Sekten. Munich, 1890.

11. S. Runciman. The Medieval Manichee. Cambridge, Mass., 1955.

12. J. J. Herzog. Abriss der gesamten Kirchengeschichte. Bd. I, Abt. 2. Die römisch-katholische Kirche des Mittelalters. Erlangen, 1890.

13. M. Beer. Allgemeine Geschichte des Sozialismus und der sozialen Kämpfe. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation, Vseobshchaia istoriia sotsializma i sotsial'noi bor'by, Moscow-Leningrad, 1927.) ,

14. H. Grundmann. Ketzergeschichte des Mittelalters. Gottingen, 1963.

15. M. Erbstösser and E. E. Werner. ldeologische Probleme des mittelalterlichen Plebejertums. Berlin, 1960.

16. T. Buttner and E. Werner. Circumcellionen und Adamiten. Berlin, 1959.

17. M. Erbstösser. Sozialreligiöse Strömungen im späten Mittelalter. Berlin, 1970.

18. Herbert Grundmann. Religiöse Bewegungen im Mittelalter. Berlin, 1935.

19. J. Macek. Tabor v gusitskom revoliutsionnom dvizhenii (Tabor in the Hussite Revolutionary Movement, in Russian; original in Czech), vol. 2. Moscow, 1959.

20. M. M. Smirin. Narodnaia reformatsiia Tomasa Miuntsera i velikaia krest'ianskaia voina (The Popular Reformation of Thomas Müntzer and the Great Peasant War, in Russian). Moscow, 1955.

21. J. Macek. Gusitskoe revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie (The Hussite Revolutionary Movement, in Russian; original in Czech). Moscow, 1954.

22. L. Ranke. Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation. Bd. II, Berlin, 1842.

23. F. Bezold. Geschichte der deutschen Reformation. Berlin, 1886.

24. L. Keller. Die Reformation und die älteren Reformparteien. Leipzig, 1885.

25. L. Keller. Johann von Staupitz und die Anfänge der Reformation. Leipzig, 1888.

26. L. Keller. Die Anfänge der Reformation und die Ketzerschulen. Berlin, 1897.

27. L. Müller. Der Kommunismus der mährischen Wiedertäufer. Leipzig, 1927.

28. T Müntzer. Sein Leben und seine Schriften. Ed. Otto H. Brandt. Jena, 1933.

29. L. Keller. Geschichte der Wiedertäufer und ihres Reichs zu Münster. Münster, 1888.

30. R. Barclay. The Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth. London, 1879.

31. W. D. Morris. The Christian Origins of Social Revolt. London, 1949.

32. A. L. Morton. The World of the Ranters. London, 1970.

33. E. Bernstein. Sozialismus und Demokratie in der grossen englischen Revolution. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation, Sotsializm i demokratiia v velikoi angliiskoi revoliutsii, Leningrad, 1924.)

34. G. Weingarten. Revolutionskirchen Englands. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation, Narodnaia reformatsiia v Anglii XVII v., Moscow, 1901.)

35. G. Winstanley. The Law of Freedom and Other Writings. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1973.

36. H. Hollorenshaw. The Levellers and the English Revolution. (Quotations refer to the Russian translation, Levellery i angliiskaia revoliutsiia, Moscow, 1947.)

37. J. Krone. Fra Dolcino und die Patarenen. Leipzig, 1844.

Nonetheless, Gnosticism has existed for well over 1500 years and Socialism was a 18th Century construct out of a reaction to Capitalism. Why people want to mix religion, politics and economics is interesting to me, but also brings up the question of their motives.

Not true. Socialism is as old as mankind. Read the book. Motivations? The cosmic battle between good and evil is being waged between free enterprise and socialism. That is the form it has taken and that is the true dividing lines in society.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

 

[Mudda]

It is obvious that the conflict is in the minds of unbelievers.

So you agree that the world wasn't made in six days? Good for you.

 

[the_human_being]

It is obvious that the conflict is in the minds of unbelievers.

So you agree that the world wasn't made in six days? Good for you.

Actually, I agree that the age of the earth has no effect upon me one way or another therefore I do not worry about it. I can attest that the earth is at least 73 years old though from personal experience. Do you also worry about the diet of the African tribesmen?

 

[Mudda]

It is obvious that the conflict is in the minds of unbelievers.

So you agree that the world wasn't made in six days? Good for you.

Actually, I agree that the age of the earth has no effect upon me one way or another therefore I do not worry about it. I can attest that the earth is at least 73 years old though from personal experience. Do you also worry about the diet of the African tribesmen?

A little too uncomfortable to think about the bible being wrong... and that's only page 1?