A Speech from the SDU(Titled: We ain`t no Communists)

As is this is the blog section, I can speak about real world examples. Russia too has a history of Communism, and the foundations of the current state do have at least some of its foundations in the previous Soviet regime. Yet the current flag of Russia has expunged all the previous Communist symbolism of the USSR.

Likewise Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, the PDR of Ethiopia, the Republic of Afghanistan, the PR of Congo, Benin, East Germany, and a few others....

All these former communist or socialist states removed socialist symbolism from their flags when hey moved away from communism and socialism. Some of the changes in flag are dramatic (Russia, the Congo), whilst others are more subtle (Bulgaria, Cambodia and Yemen), but in each case a move from one form of political structure to another resulted in a change of symbolism.

Basically what you're saying is that your flag is meaningless, because all the symbolism in it is redundant. You don't have a flag that actually represents your ideals, just a flag you think looks smart. And it isn't bad, I grant you... but worthless as a flag for your alliance.

As is this is the blog section, I can speak about real world examples. Russia too has a history of Communism, and the foundations of the current state do have at least some of its foundations in the previous Soviet regime. Yet the current flag of Russia has expunged all the previous Communist symbolism of the USSR.

Likewise Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, Cambodia, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, the PDR of Ethiopia, the Republic of Afghanistan, the PR of Congo, Benin, East Germany, and a few others....

All these former communist or socialist states removed socialist symbolism from their flags when hey moved away from communism and socialism. Some of the changes in flag are dramatic (Russia, the Congo), whilst others are more subtle (Bulgaria, Cambodia and Yemen), but in each case a move from one form of political structure to another resulted in a change of symbolism.

Basically what you're saying is that your flag is meaningless, because all the symbolism in it is redundant. You don't have a flag that actually represents your ideals, just a flag you think looks smart. And it isn't bad, I grant you... but worthless as a flag for your alliance.

No, the Alliance still somewhat identifies with Socialist ideas. Our leader ahppens to be a socialist. We wish to remain in touch with our roots. Politically we are against communism. Historically, we gladly remember it as a part of our history. It is still a useful flag. It represent`s our current socialist ideas (Not mine specifically, i still am a Right Winger) and our leaders ideas as well.

What do you understand as the difference between Communist and Socialist "ideas"?

What do you understand as the difference between Communist and Socialist "ideas"?

Yes i do. Just some of the Basics are that Communists belive that all land and buisness should be in the hands of the government, while socialism, believes that some land and buisness should be in the governments hand.

Winner, may I draw you a MSPaint picture?

No you don't understand communism. We believe in a classes stateless society there would be no state so no real government

Oh where is the greatest anti-judaizer of them all when you need him?

Prepare to have a lot of misunderstandings. Might as well use a cross for your symbol and get mad when everyone thinks you're a Christian alliance.

Prepare to have a lot of misunderstandings. Might as well use a cross for your symbol and get mad when everyone thinks you're a Christian alliance.

I Lol'ed

Your capitalist system obviously hasn't worked for your nation, and obviously not for your past alliances. You are incredibly moronic and you should feel moronic

And, where is the problem with being labeled as communist?

PLEASE RETIRE LIKE YOU SAID YOU WOULD.

And yes...there is nothing wrong with communism in theory.

PLEASE RETIRE LIKE YOU SAID YOU WOULD.

And yes...there is nothing wrong with communism in theory.

I actually agree with some communist ideas on a world view just not on a american view.

I actually agree with some communist ideas on a world view just not on a american view.

Equal rights and everyone getting a fair share?

A political system that is only "good in theory" isn't a good political system.

I actually agree with some communist ideas on a world view just not on a american view.

What are you talking about.

A political system that is only "good in theory" isn't a good political system.

First of all, communism is not a political system, it is an economical system.
Dude, it has never been carried out the correct way, it is always carried out with an oppressive dictator, nobody knows what would happen if you had a person that actually cares about the people/ that has checks on his or her powers. I'm not saying "Let's all go commie" but people get the wrong vibe about it for no reason.

Dude, it has never been carried out the correct way, it is always carried out with an oppressive dictator, nobody knows what would happen if you had a person that actually cares about the people/ that has checks on his or her powers.

Yes, that's the problem with Communism: people will be people. So, seeing as we cannot hope to change every single person in the world, or even within a particular community, we are left with an economic system that can only ever be an ideal. While ever there is a proportion of greedy people, there is a need to apply communism by force for it to work, and while ever force is used, communist states will require an oppressive dictatorship of some sort.

I would be more sympathetic of Communism as a system if the strivings for the "correct" way hadn't been such utter failures. At some point you have to cut your losses, and when the experimentations in communism have been/still are so wickedly oppressive to actual people then you have to say: it's not worth playing around with it anymore.

The Christian Gospel contains ways of life that could be said to be similar to Communism. The key difference is the way the Gospel is applied - and the way it is taught to be applied. Rather than seeking to change the entire world, or society, or a particular nation, the change begins personally and internally. The "purges" of "evil capitalists", bourgeoisie, fifth columnists, is to be done within our own heart. Then, we are changed in our behaviour towards other people, and we begin to love them - we do not begin to love "humanity", as some amorphous entity, but actual people - faults and all - that are next to us: friends, family, neighbours, enemies, and anyone else we come into contact with.

This works: I've seen it work. If every person in the world lived this way then Communism would work - but then Communism as an enforced economic system wouldn't be necessary if everyone was like this.

Yes, that's the problem with Communism: people will be people. So, seeing as we cannot hope to change every single person in the world, or even within a particular community, we are left with an economic system that can only ever be an ideal. While ever there is a proportion of greedy people, there is a need to apply communism by force for it to work, and while ever force is used, communist states will require an oppressive dictatorship of some sort.

Lets stick with facts. Marx and Engel's idea of Communism has never been correctly applied. Communism, or any Leftist economic ideology for that matter, has gotten a bad rap from dictators like Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Fidel Castro. People believe it can't work because no one has seen it work. Communism calls for an abolition of state after land redistribution. And as you can tell from the news, China, North Korea, etc. aren't doing that anytime soon. There is suppose to be an equal redistrubtion of land. The dictators of previously stated countries and their followers live in these palace like houses. Hardly equal to the country's peasants. These are just a few of the flaws in these countries.

The goal of Communism is to give everyone a fair share. You look outside and see everyone has the same size yard and the same size house. You open your pacheck and realize your wife gets paid the same, along with your brother, sister, cousin, neighbor, and so on. Everything (atleasts financialy wise) is fair. Imagine a country where everyone is middle class, no one is poor, no one is rich. And everything is done for the common good of the society. The only real flaw is a loss of indivuality in material possessions.

I would be more sympathetic of Communism as a system if the strivings for the "correct" way hadn't been such utter failures. At some point you have to cut your losses, and when the experimentations in communism have been/still are so wickedly oppressive to actual people then you have to say: it's not worth playing around with it anymore.

And Capitalism isn't oppressive? You work all damned day for $20 dollars an hour, when the people who do almost nothing besides twidle their thumbs at meetings get paid 6, 7, 8 figure salaries? And your government is giving these guys and girls the bailouts and the tax loopholes? Hell, the government gives our tax dollars to the millionares in bailouts and the middle class is getting crushed, and the poor just keep getting poorer. Yup. Gotta love America.

This works: I've seen it work. If every person in the world lived this way then Communism would work - but then Communism as an enforced economic system wouldn't be necessary if everyone was like this.

I'd like to see the evidence of this working. One big scenario of this NOT working is Jerusalem at any time period. And one big flaw in your idea of a perfect world by Christain Gospel is everyone has to be Christain. You could sugar coat it all you want but I doubt the Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and everyone else would enjoy the idea of Christain Gospel.

Lets stick with facts.

That's what I was doing. Your next two paragraphs deal with ideas and ideals; not practicalities.

And Capitalism isn't oppressive? You work all damned day for $20 dollars an hour, when the people who do almost nothing besides twidle their thumbs at meetings get paid 6, 7, 8 figure salaries? And your government is giving these guys and girls the bailouts and the tax loopholes? Hell, the government gives our tax dollars to the millionares in bailouts and the middle class is getting crushed, and the poor just keep getting poorer. Yup. Gotta love America.

Well, I don't live in America. There are numerous countries that have capitalism as an economic system, and whilst some appear to be awful, some manage to get by quite well with the appropriate checks and balances in place. As I said, Communism in reality hasn't had such a "mixed bag" of success, but a uniformly terrible outcome.

I'd like to see the evidence of this working.

You have missed my point entirely. This is not surprising when you consider the ideas and theories of Marx as "facts". The Christian Gospel works because it does not seek to change "society", but "people" - as individuals. You really believe there is no evidence of Christianity changing people in such a radical way? You don't believe there have been and are Christians living together in communities, where there is no private possession, but that everything is shared in common? Really?

The way of the Gospel changes people's worlds, one at a time. Political ideologies try to change the world, all in one go. It's impossible to do this and fails every time. Unfortunately, Communism has failed in particularly catastrophic ways, though that just may have been down to it flourishing in the industrialized 20th century where methods of murder were so efficient. What makes Communism even more prone to fail is that the one way people an change - inwardly and individually - is denied by Communism as you yourself state:

The only real flaw is a loss of indivuality...

Yes, you say "in material possession", but it amounts to the same thing. A loss of individuality means a loss of humanity.

Well, I don't live in America. There are numerous countries that have capitalism as an economic system, and whilst some appear to be awful, some manage to get by quite well with the appropriate checks and balances in place. As I said, Communism in reality hasn't had such a "mixed bag" of success, but a uniformly terrible outcome.

As I will state again, Communism has never been correctly applied. If you understood Communism, even just a little, you'd realize these so called "Communist States" are just kidding themselves, and giving a bad name to Communism.

You have missed my point entirely. This is not surprising when you consider the ideas and theories of Marx as "facts". The Christian Gospel works because it does not seek to change "society", but "people" - as individuals. You really believe there is no evidence of Christianity changing people in such a radical way? You don't believe there have been and are Christians living together in communities, where there is no private possession, but that everything is shared in common? Really?

I have not once called Marx's theroies facts. They are ideologies. You constantly miss read every post I make. And it is honestly really annoying.

You have also just stated a Communist ideal.

You don't believe there have been and are Christians living together in communities, where there is no private possession, but that everything is shared in common?

So, these Christain communities were and are practicing Communism. Just because they are Christain doesn't mean it wasn't and aren't Communist.

The way of the Gospel changes people's worlds, one at a time. Political ideologies try to change the world, all in one go. It's impossible to do this and fails every time. Unfortunately, Communism has failed in particularly catastrophic ways, though that just may have been down to it flourishing in the industrialized 20th century where methods of murder were so efficient.

And how long would it take to change every single person's viewpoint on earth? You state how Communism doesn't work, however your own words are proof that gospel is completly ineffective. Also, I will state again, Communism has never been correctly applied. The Vanguard party gets power hungry and besides beinging the transition to Democracy like Marx had stated, the put themselves in power permanetly. However, I will entertain your viewpoint on the catastrophic faliures of Communism. Cuba is still firmly under the control of the Communist Party, along with China, Veitnam, North Korea, and others. If they were such failures why hasn't there been a Capitalist revoultion in these countries?

What makes Communism even more prone to fail is that the one way people an change - inwardly and individually - is denied by Communism as you yourself state:



Yes, you say "in material possession", but it amounts to the same thing. A loss of individuality means a loss of humanity.

No it doesn't. Does communism say you must wear nothing but red shirts, jeans, have a buzzcut, and a yellow house? No it doesn't. You can paint your house whatever you want, wear whatever kind of clothes you want, and do whatever you want to do. You saying that just shows how materialistic society has come. I'm not saying I'm immune to it, I love to have stuff. But I don't consider my possessions what make myself, me. You seem like a very spiritual person. If you lost your bible, does that mean you are any less spiritual?

LOL YEAH RIGHT MAN i bet u voted 4 OBAMA or should i say OBA-MAO the ultra-leftist COMMIE candidate god this guy is so dumb i bet he hates freedom

WINNER

WHY DO u H8 MERKA?

As I will state again, Communism has never been correctly applied. If you understood Communism, even just a little, you'd realize these so called "Communist States" are just kidding themselves, and giving a bad name to Communism.

The point is that the ideals you put forward are literally not real. You can state and re-state until you're blue in the face (or maybe red in the face is more appropriate) about what "ideal" Communism is, but the ideal has never happened, and never come close to happening when applied as such. And that goes back to my very straightforward sentence that started this debate: a system to govern society that is only "good in theory" - i.e. only works in an idealized, theoretical, set of circumstances - is not a good system. Theories are good for developing scientific understanding, but politics and economics are all about practicalities. And that is why Communism is absolutely useless. It's a has failed, and will fail.

How can I state this so definitely? Because the flaws that have caused Communism to fail so utterly in the past are absolutely fundamental. Those flaws are the flaws you yourself have stated: human flaws and human greed. Communism can only work if everyone's on board, and quite frankly that will never happen whilst human beings exist as diverse peoples and individuals with there own wants, needs, strengths and weaknesses. All that wonderful diversity needs to be destroyed in order for Communism to "correctly applied". And to do this requires precisely the sort of oppression that you describe as "incorrectly applied" Communism. And that is the Catch-22. Communism is a perfect political and/or economic system so long as you're not a human being. That's a big, fat fail in my book.

I have not once called Marx's theroies facts. They are ideologies. You constantly miss read every post I make. And it is honestly really annoying.

I understood your point. I don't think you understood mine. The fact that "no one has seen Communism work", in a fully-functioning state, is proof that it is a fantastical idea - something not real, or tangible. No one can see Communism work, for the reasons I gave above. I think one reason there is such opposition to Communism is because the undoubted failures of Communism as humane ways to govern society is that their failure is so horrific. These dictators that you rattle off as inconsequential caused suffering for millions of people - suffering not seen on such a scale in human history. It's not worth carrying on this experiment even one more time to see if, this time, it might work. It hasn't in the past - it hasn't even come close - and on top of that indescribable amounts of suffering have been inflicted.

You have also just stated a Communist ideal. So, these Christain communities were and are practicing Communism. Just because they are Christain doesn't mean it wasn't and aren't Communist.

I stated it in those very words so that you would see your "ideals" that you wish to see work on a national, perhaps even global, scale, are only possible on a much smaller scale. The reason? Because it has to be consensual, not coerced. And, I'm sorry, you're never going to get the X billion people to give up their possessions just for the sake of a political utopia: heaven on earth. That's the greatest irony: the people who most live the "ideal" Communist life (and just to be clear: I'm talking about monastic communities here), are doing it for entirely spiritual reasons, not for materialistic reasons (common ownership of the means of production, redistribution of wealth).

And how long would it take to change every single person's viewpoint on earth? You state how Communism doesn't work, however your own words are proof that gospel is completly ineffective.

No, Communism is completely ineffective. It is completely ineffective because of its internationalism - reaching for something that cannot possibly ever happen. Even you yourself say it: how long would it take to change everyone's mind? Of course it's impossible, so Communism can only succeed through the use of force an coercion: the exact things which you earlier claim to be "incorrectly applied" Communism.

The Gospel is effective because it clearly reaches out to individuals, who then naturally form their own communities. The Gospel does change people, demonstrably so, and leave "the world", the impersonal humanity to its own devices. The Gospel itself contains this message - of leaving "the world", and preparing for the "end of the world". Communism, as all materialistic-minded ideologies do, seeks to "change the world", and in doing so tramples over the rights of actual people in deference to some vaguely stated "greater good".

It's all been observed before. Revolutionaries in Russia - usually middle-class intellectuals - would spend evenings proclaiming their love for mankind, and then go home and beat their servant for being slow in removing their coat. It's alright saying "so-and-so is greedy for power and not a 'proper' Communist/Socialist", but how many times do you have to say this before you realize that no-one is can be a proper, practical, Communist, only a pure idealist.

The poison is not Communism, per se, but ideology. All ideology is poisonous, even "religious ideology", which also certainly exists. Ideology is poisonous because it causes people to lie to other people and themselves. The "ideal" rules over them and becomes an idol. Everything else, including personal relationships, become subordinate to it and suffer from it. The Gospel does not do this because it demands exactly the opposite: it requires us to put other people - our relationships with others, including our enemies - above ideology, and even above ourselves.

Basically it teaches, demands, and provides the means for us to obtain: humility. When we look to the horizon, and try to take in the whole world and all within it, our perspective is skewed and we stumble. On the other hand, if we humbly cast our gaze to the ground, we can correctly order our steps one at a time and in this way live our lives.

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?

Just as an addendum, I will not ignore this point:

However, I will entertain your viewpoint on the catastrophic faliures of Communism. Cuba is still firmly under the control of the Communist Party, along with China, Veitnam, North Korea, and others. If they were such failures why hasn't there been a Capitalist revoultion in these countries?

I hope you're not measuring the "success" of a state on how long it can cling to power. North Korea hangs on manfully as a reclusive Marxist state, but let me be absolutely clear that the mass-starvation of almost the entire population of a country by their own government is the sort of thing I mean when I talk about "catastrophic failure".

China is a good country to bring up because I lived there for over 6 years and I have some familiarity of what it's like there. Economically it is not a Communist state. More importantly is that it is less of a Communist state, economically, than it used to be. In other words, China is not a state that's heading towards a pure Communist form of government, but away from it. Painfully slowly in some areas, but inexorably it is heading away from ideal forms of Communism. I am sure you will say Communism has never been "correctly applied" in China, and I would concede that point; however, the worst periods in the PRC's history came at precisely the time when China tried to "correctly apply" Communism. Yes, they failed, but that is my point: it always fails, and fails in quite terrible ways. The Communist Party of China has survived by never, ever, even attempting to try such a thing ever again - and this is how they will continue to survive: opening up its borders, allowing free enterprise, private property, and even encouraging it.

As for Vietnam and Cuba I will admit my ignorance of their recent history and current situation. However, are you saying that these governments are surviving by pushing towards a purer form of Communism, or away from it? Could you provide evidence for that, citing recent changes in those nations' government or legislature?

So, I heard you're a communist alliance. What's up with that?

Igumen, I can't state any more clear on my point, Communism, as Marx had designed, has never been correctly applied. Your entire argument is based upon the failure of Communism. However, this has not been the case. I will agree with you on one point, the idea of Common Ownership of Everything may not be liked by everyone, and if there was to be a Communist rebellion in California, changing the minds of the people to be less materialistic would take time. That doesn't mean it is ineffective. It has never been done in an Industrialized country like France, USA, Canada, etc. So saying it will fail without seeing it work is just silly.

However, we have seen peaceful gospel fail. For example, Jerusalem, Egypt, practically any Arabic country. I have also failed to see Christain gospel work in any large scale setting. Forceful gospel has worked I will admit, most used in the Colonial period of America. Basically you convert, great. If you refuse, your deemed a "Devil worshipper" or a heretic and you are burnt alive.

In a final note, Communism has nothing to do with internationalism. You could say the USSR when it wanted said something along the lines of "We shall be the light for Communism". However nothing that I have read or studied about Communism has stated anything about internationalism. Yeah, it would be nice to have some allies as a lone Communist country in a Capitalist dominated Continent wouldn't last very long.

Communism, as all materialistic-minded ideologies do, seeks to "change the world", and in doing so tramples over the rights of actual people in deference to some vaguely stated "greater good". It's all been observed before. Revolutionaries in Russia - usually middle-class intellectuals - would spend evenings proclaiming their love for mankind, and then go home and beat their servant for being slow in removing their coat.

I honestly laughed when I read this. One, you just proved my point on how the Communist ideal has never been done correctly. You said it yourself "middle-class intellectuals". A Communist rebellion is suppose to come from the working class, the factory workers, the farmers, store employess, the back bone of modern society. I haven't touched on that point yet so, thanks.

The paragraph of yours that I quoted would have made me laugh hysterically if it wasn't so late at night. When you called Communism a "materialistic ideology" I couldn't help but laugh. A common ownership of all material possessions wouldn't allow for just a bunch of stuff. Plain and simple. This just proves you have little understanding of Communism.

Igumen, I can't state any more clear on my point, Communism, as Marx had designed, has never been correctly applied. Your entire argument is based upon the failure of Communism.

What I have said is that Communism cannot work, for a very fundamental reason. I know I can be a bit wordy, so I forgive you if you've skipped over my reply and not seen the main points amid the waffle. Iwill restate what I said before, but with some pertinent emphasis added:

The point is that the ideals you put forward are literally not real. You can state and re-state until you're blue in the face (or maybe red in the face is more appropriate) about what "ideal" Communism is, but the ideal has never happened, and never come close to happening when applied as such. And that goes back to my very straightforward sentence that started this debate: a system to govern society that is only "good in theory" - i.e. only works in an idealized, theoretical, set of circumstances - is not a good system. Theories are good for developing scientific understanding, but politics and economics are all about practicalities. And that is why Communism is absolutely useless. It has failed, and will fail.

How can I state this so definitely? Because the flaws that have caused Communism to fail so utterly in the past are absolutely fundamental. Those flaws are the flaws you yourself have stated: human flaws and human greed. Communism can only work if everyone's on board, and quite frankly that will never happen whilst human beings exist as diverse peoples and individuals with there own wants, needs, strengths and weaknesses. All that wonderful diversity needs to be destroyed in order for Communism to "correctly applied". And to do this requires precisely the sort of oppression that you describe as "incorrectly applied" Communism. And that is the Catch-22. Communism is a perfect political and/or economic system so long as you're not a human being. That's a big, fat fail in my book.

However, this has not been the case. I will agree with you on one point, the idea of Common Ownership of Everything may not be liked by everyone, and if there was to be a Communist rebellion in California, changing the minds of the people to be less materialistic would take time. That doesn't mean it is ineffective. It has never been done in an Industrialized country like France, USA, Canada, etc. So saying it will fail without seeing it work is just silly.

Do you think people living in industrialized countries are less materialistic and greedy than people living in agrarian societies? Honestly?? I have already stated what the fundamental flaw of Communism is, as I see it, and that fundamental flaw is greater in an industrialized nation than it is in an agrarian one.

However, we have seen peaceful gospel fail. For example, Jerusalem, Egypt, practically any Arabic country.

You choose some poor examples there, as Christian communities still exist in those places and do live peacefully. They are oppressed and persecuted by Muslim majorities yes, but if you honestly believe this contradicts the Gospel then I am not at all sure you've read it. Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake: Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in Heaven.

I have also failed to see Christain gospel work in any large scale setting.

It is the striving to make any "system" work in a "large scale setting" that causes it to inevitably fail. I know you're not reading what I have written if you're still trying to argue this way.

Forceful gospel has worked I will admit, most used in the Colonial period of America. Basically you convert, great. If you refuse, your deemed a "Devil worshipper" or a heretic and you are burnt alive.

No, this is not the Gospel working. This is the Gospel applied as an ideology and failing as a result. Again, you are measuring success in purely materialistic ways (and I will come on to what I mean by materialism further down)

I honestly laughed when I read this. One, you just proved my point on how the Communist ideal has never been done correctly. You said it yourself "middle-class intellectuals". A Communist rebellion is suppose to come from the working class, the factory workers, the farmers, store employess, the back bone of modern society. I haven't touched on that point yet so, thanks.

Like I say, you keep dealing with non-existent ideal situations, I'll keep bringing up what actually happens. I did go on after this statement to say exactly why this "incorrect" application always happens. It is because of the materialism of Communism as a political ideology. And I promised I' explain what I mean by that, so without further ado:

The paragraph of yours that I quoted would have made me laugh hysterically if it wasn't so late at night. When you called Communism a "materialistic ideology" I couldn't help but laugh.

Perhaps this is because you haven't yet come across "Materialism" as philosophy:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Materialism

Materialism here isn't a synonym with greed or avarice: it is a system of thought that Communism strictly adheres to. You yourself adhere to it with your materialistic views on "success", which skew things so wildly that you believe that the Gospel applied through violence is a successful application of the Gospel-life!

The barriers to our communication are fundamental. It will not be solved by you teaching me about what Communism really is, or I teaching you what the Gospel really is. However, the discussion has brought out some important points which may be read by the gallery, and it is to them that I repeat my last comments, which were not addressed by you:

The poison is not Communism, per se, but ideology. All ideology is poisonous, even "religious ideology", which also certainly exists. Ideology is poisonous because it causes people to lie to other people and themselves. The "ideal" rules over them and becomes an idol. Everything else, including personal relationships, become subordinate to it and suffer from it. The Gospel does not do this because it demands exactly the opposite: it requires us to put other people - our relationships with others, including our enemies - above ideology, and even above ourselves.

Basically it teaches, demands, and provides the means for us to obtain: humility. Ideologies deal with grand theories, all-encompassing principles, that treat people as an amorphous mass of humanity, rather than actual persons created by God. They compel people to gaze towards the grand vista of imaginary ideals instead of dealing with practicalities. When we look to this man-made horizon, and try to take in the whole world and all within it, our perspective is skewed and we stumble. On the other hand, if we humbly cast our gaze to the ground, we can correctly order our steps one at a time and in this way live our lives.

Nothing you have said convinces me you appreciate these statements: you have neither agreed to them or disagreed with them: you've simply ignored them. Until they are addressed we are just talking past each other.

Nothing you have said convinces me you appreciate these statements: you have neither agreed to them or disagreed with them: you've simply ignored them. Until they are addressed we are just talking past each other.

I have read those paragraphs several times. However I believe we will continue to talk past each other whether or not these are adressed. The reason is, as you have stated several times, these are ideologies. In our minds, we believe our's to be the best. You believe Christain gospel is the correct way to go, as I believe Communism is the best way to go. As i have stated before in a previous topic, debating these things never are successful and rarely go anywhere, proven here.

Thanks for the debate in any case. Its nice to have a debate every once in awhile. I'll let you win this one

I have read those paragraphs several times. However I believe we will continue to talk past each other whether or not these are adressed. The reason is, as you have stated several times, these are ideologies. In our minds, we believe our's to be the best.

For the sake of anyone still reading, I just wish to reiterate that I do not believe the Gospel to be an ideology. That is why it so often succeeds where ideologies like Communism fail. I made a concession that ideologies can be religious, and that you can have "Christian ideologues", and I further stated that they are as misguided as socialist/facist/liberal/conservative ideologues; however, I state with firm conviction that the Gospel is not an ideology.

The Gospel is a way of life that can be followed without hypocrisy and with every success, by the grace of God. It can do this because the Gospel speaks to individuals, and provides a way of life for every one of us. Some of us choose to follow it in word and deed, some do not (non-believers), whilst others follow it in word but not in deed (and their fall is lager than the second category). Communism - and any other political ideology - proscribes and prescribes principles for "society" and "humanity". It is this "broad view", that ignores or even spurns the human person as an individual that causes an ideology to inevitably fail. It's not "practical" enough. It provides ideals, ideas, and principles, but the tools to carry them out are not available to most humans (those tools are: absolute selflessness and altruism).

The Gospel is practical because it deals with changing the inner-man: and this happens all the time. The means for acheiving this are also given to us: namely repentance, humility, and surrender to God. We can all do this, even if not everyone does. The Gospel even explicitly states that "the world" - the thing that Communism and other political ideologies try to change - is fundamentally corrupt and will not get better through human effort. The only thing it will do is eventually pass away. The Gospel cannot be considered to fail at doing something it never sets out to do! Communism can be considered to fail because what it sets out to achieve - change society - has always failed. This is true of all ideologies, for the reasons I stated above. We are talking about Communism specifically because that is the subject of this thread. I also reiterate that Communism has failed spectacularly badly (in terms of human suffering), which is why its simply not worth experimenting with it again. But apart from that difference, I am as suspicious of Communism as any other political/economical philosophy that promises a utopia.

Just wanted to clear that up. I know you won't reply as you've already "let me win"