Posted on 01/24/2009 5:28:02 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
There is a relationship between Rationalist Press and Kerr & Co., which published communist books, tracts, and The International Socialist Review. [1] Charles Kerr was himself a raving communist, and there is much overlap in the choice of materials published by Kerr and RPA-Watts. Kerr & Co published the 1904 book God and My Neighbour, a dismal and idiotic tract by the communist Robert Blatchford, a compendium of insufferable moralizing atheist intellectual lobotomizations, and in the lowest denomenator of it as well. This is an interesting book for two reasons. First, absolutely anything you are likely to hear from a raving atheist of today has already been said (word-for-word) by Blatchford in 1904 -- it is quite striking to see this -- proving once again that every atheist book is just like every other atheist book. If you have heard one raving atheist, you have heard them all. Second, and more important, are the publisher's notes, by Charles Kerr himself, and the preambles by Blatchford. Here they are (abridged):
From the Publisher's Note, Charles Kerr:
The publishing house of which I am manager is composed of socialists, but it has no official connection with the Socialist Party of America. As a member of the Socialist Party, I recognize the right of every other member to complete liberty of opinion in matters of religion. As a matter of fact, many of our members are Catholics, and many are orthodox Protestants. Our publishing house has issued a number of books written from the Christian point of view, and may issue more of them in future. But I claim for myself the same liberty I concede to others, and speaking for myself I recommend this book by Robert Blatchford as one of the clearest, sanest, most sympathetic and most helpful discussions of the deep and vital problem of religion that it has ever been my good fortune to read.
When we grow out of childish conceptions into clearer ones, we have to choose between discarding our old phrases and keeping them, but reading a new meaning into them. I may prefer to do the latter because, all things considered, there may seem to be less danger of being misunderstood by following this course. I do not question the sincerity nor the clear vision of those who, like Blatchford, take the other course. I merely see that untrained minds attach themselves to words, and that it may be a waste of effort to try to detach them.
As socialists, we realize that a religion arises from and corresponds to certain definite economic conditions. Christianity was originally a religion of consolation for slaves whose material condition was hopeless. Later it became an instrument of the ruling class for perpetuating slavery. But economic conditions are now making the longer continuance of slavery impossible, and the era of collectivism seems close at hand. What will be the religion corresponding to the conditions of freedom? I suspect that in English-speaking countries it will be a modified form of Christianity, stripped of its supernaturalism, its asceticism, its introspective ethics, its insistence on individual immortality, and other irrational ideas...
Meanwhile Robert Blatchford has done splendid service in pointing out the unworthy elements that must be removed from Christianity if it is to be transformed into the religion of the future. [2]
From the Preface, Robert Blatchford:
Which is worse, to be a Demagogue or an Infidel? I am both. For while many professed Christians contrive to serve both God and Mammon, the depravity of my nature seems to forbid my serving either.
Is there a man amongst all London's millions brave enough to tell the naked truth about the vice and crime, the misery and meanness, the hypocrisies and shames of the great, rich, heathen city? Were such a man to arise amongst us and voice the awful truth, what would his reception be? How would he fare at the hands of the Press, and the Public -- and the Church?
"Ladies and Gentlemen," I say, "you are Christian in name, but I discern little of Christ in your ideals, your institutions, or your daily lives. You are a mercenary, self-indulgent, frivolous, boastful, blood-guilty mob of heathen. I like you very much, but that is what you are. And it is you -- you who call men "Infidels." You ridiculous creatures, what do you mean by it? If to praise Christ in words, and deny Him in deeds, be Christianity, then London is a Christian city, and England is a Christian nation.
My Christian friends, I am a Socialist, and as such believe in, and work for, universal freedom, and universal brotherhood, and universal peace.
From the Foreward, Robert Blatchford:
It is impossible for me to present the whole of my case in the space at my command; I can only give an outline. Neither can I do it as well as it ought to be done, but only as well as I am able. To make up for my shortcomings, and to fortify my case with fuller evidence, I must refer the reader to books written by men better equipped for the work than I. To do justice to so vast a theme would need a large book, where I can only spare a short chapter, and each large book should be written by a specialist.
For the reader's own satisfaction, then, and for the sake of justice to my cause, I shall venture to suggest a list of books whose contents will atone for all my failures and omissions. And I am justified, I think, in saying that no reader who has not read the books I recommend, or others of like scope and value, can fairly claim to sit on the jury to try this case. And of these books I shall, first of all, heartily recommend the series of cheap sixpenny reprints now published by the Rationalist Press Association, Johnson's Court, London, E.G.
R.P.A Reprints
Huxley's Lectures and Essays.Tyndall's Lectures and Essays.Laing's Human Origins.Laing's Modern Science and Modern Thought.Clodd's Pioneers of Evolution.Mathew Arnold's Literature and Dogma.Haeckel's Riddle of the Universe.Grant Allen's Evolution of the Idea of God.Cotter Morrison's Service of Man.Herbert Spencer's Education.Some Apologists have, I am sorry to say, attempted to disparage those excellent books by alluding to them as "Sixpenny Science" and "Cheap Science." The same method of attack will not be available against most of the books in my next list: [3]
The Golden Bough, Frazer. Macmillain, 36s.The Legend of Perseus, Hartland. D. Nutt, 25s.Christianity and Mythology, Robertson. Watts, 8s.Pagan Christs, Robertson. Watts, 8s.Supernatural Religion, Cassel. Watts, 6s.The Martyrdom of Man, Winwood Reade. Kegan Paul, 6s.Mutual Aid, Kropotkin. Heinemann, 7s. 6d.The Story of Creation, Clodd. Longmans, 3s. 6d.Buddha and Buddhism, Lille. Clark, 3s. 6d.Shall We understand the Bible? Williams. Black, 1s.What is Religion? Tolstoy. Free Age Press, 6d.What I believe, Tolstoy. Free Age Press, 6d.The Life of Christ, Renan. Scott, 1s. 6d.I also recommend Herbert Spencer's Principles of Sociology, and Lecky's History of European Morals. Of pamphlets there are hundreds. Readers will get full information from Watts & Co., 17 Johnson's Court, London, E.C. I can warmly recommend The Miracles of Christian Belief and The Claims of Christianity, by Charles Watts, and Christianity and Progress, a penny pamphlet, by G. W. Foote (The Freethought Publishing Company). [4] I should also like to mention An Easy Outline of Evolution, by Dennis Hird (Watts & Co., 2s. 6d.). This book will be of great help to those who want to scrape acquaintance with the theory of evolution.
Finally, let me ask the general reader to put aside all prejudice, and give both sides a fair hearing. Most of the books I have mentioned above are of more actual value to the public of to-day than many standard works which hold world-wide reputations.
No man should regard the subject of religion as decided for him until he has read The Golden Bough. The Golden Bough is one of those books that unmake history. [5]
We might as well dip into Blatchford's book and enjoy basking in the light of rationalism-communism-atheism-darwinism. This book can save you a lot of personal trouble. You need not discourse or argue with communists, atheists, etc. and the like. Whatever they will say is to be found already in Blatchford's book. So read it, and in that way you spare yourself the tedium of repeatedly parsing the very same sentiments from dozens of atheists, communists, rationalists, etc. [6]
Now, with those last words, consider the blessings socialism has heaped upon "man, woman, and child" since 1904.They used to believe in witchcraft, and they burned millions -- yes, millions -- of innocent women as witches... They used to believe the legends of Adam and Eve, and the Flood. They call them allegories now. They used to denounce Darwinism as impious and absurd. They have since "cheerfully accepted " the theory of evolution. (pg. 5)
I cannot believe that man was at the first created "perfect," and that he "fell." (How could the perfect fall?) I believe the theory of evolution, which shows not a fall but a gradual rise... I accept the theory of evolution, which teaches that man was slowly evolved by natural process from lower forms of life, and that this evolution took millions of years. (pg. 10)
The differences between the religious and the scientific theories, or, as I should put it, between superstition and rationalism, are clearly marked and irreconcilable. The supernatural stands by "creation": the rationalist stands by "evolution." The creation theory alleges that the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and man, and the animals were "created " by God, instantaneously, by word of mouth, out of nothing. The evolution theory alleges that they were evolved, slowly, by natural processes out of previously existing matter... The rationalist alleges that religion was evolved by slow degrees and by human minds, and that all existing forms of religion and all existing "sacred books," instead of being "revelations," are evolutions from religious ideas and forms and legends of prehistoric times. It is impossible to reduce opposite theories denominator... If you discard "Creation" and accept evolution; if you discard " revelation " and accept evolution; if you discard miracles and accept natural law, there is nothing left of the Christian Religion... (pg. 11-13)
In The Story of Creation Mr. Ed. Clodd tells us that one cubic inch of rotten stone contains 41 thousand million vegetable skeletons of diatoms... When did a poet conceive an idea so vast and so astounding as the theory of evolution? What are a few paltry lumps of crystallised carbon compared to a galaxy of a million million suns? Did any Eastern inventor of marvels ever suggest such a human feat as that accomplished by the men who have, during the last handful of centuries, spelt out the mystery of the universe? These scientists have worked miracles before which those of the ancient priests and magicians are mere tricks of hanky-panky. (pg. 44)
Is this unspeakable monster, Jahweh, the Father of Christ? Is he the God who inspired Buddha, and Shakespeare, and Herschel, and Beethoven, and Darwin, and Plato, and Bach? No; not he. But in warfare and massacre, in rapine and in rape, in black revenge and deadly malice, in slavery, and polygamy, and the debasement of women; and in the pomps, vanities, and greeds of royalty, of clericalism, and of usury and barter -- we may easily discern the influence of his ferocious and abominable personality. It is time to have done with this nightmare fetish of a murderous tribe of savages. We have no use for him. We have no criminal so ruthless nor so blood-guilty as he. He is not fit to touch our cities, imperfect as we are. The thought of him defiles and nauseates. We should think him too horrible and pitiless for a devil, this red-handed, black-hearted Jehovah of the Jews. (pg. 56)
First, as to Adam and the Fall and inherited sin. Evolution, historical research, and scientific criticism have disposed of Adam. Adam was a myth. Hardly any educated Christians now regard him as an historic person. But -- no Adam, no Fall; no Fall, no Atonement; no Atonement, no Saviour. Accepting Evolution, how can we believe in a Fall? When did man fall? Was it before he ceased to be a monkey, or after? Was it when he was a tree man, or later? Was it in the Stone Age, or the Bronze Age, or in the Age of Iron? There never was any "Fall." Evolution proves a long, slow rise. And if there never was a Fall, why should there be any Atonement? Christians accepting the theory of evolution have to believe that God allowed the sun to form out of the nebula, and the earth to form from the sun. That He allowed man to develop slowly from the speck of protoplasm in the sea. That at some period of man's gradual evolution from the brute, God found man guilty of some sin, and cursed him. That some thousands of years later God sent His only Son down upon the earth to save man from Hell. But Evolution shows man to be, even now, an imperfect creature, an unfinished work, a building still undergoing alterations, an animal still evolving... (pg. 124)
Are we to believe that the God who created all this boundless universe got so angry with the children of the apes that He condemned them all to Hell for two score centuries, and then could only appease His rage by sending His own Son to be nailed upon a cross ? Do you believe that? Can you believe it? No. As I said before, if the theory of evolution be true, there was nothing to atone for, and nobody to atone. Man has never sifined against God. In fact, the whole of this old Christian doctrine is a mass of error. There was no creation. There was no Fall. There was no Atonement. There was no Adam, and no Eve, and no Eden, and no Devil, and no Hell. (pg. 125)
For whereas the Christian theory of free will and personal responsibility results in established ignorance and injustice, with no visible remedies beyond personal denunciation, the prison, and a few coals and blankets, the Determinist method would result in the abolition of lords and burglars, of slums and palaces, of caste and snobbery. There would be no ignorance and no poverty left in the world. That is because the Determinist understands human nature, and the Christian does not. It is because the Determinist understands morality, and the Christian does not. For the Determinist looks for the cause of wrong-doing in the environment of the wrong-doer. While the Christian puts all the wrongs which society perpetrates against the individual, and all the wrongs which the individual perpetrates against his fellows down to an imaginary "free will." (pg. 142--144)
Which religion was the borrower from the other -- Buddhism or Christianity?... But the altruistic idea is very much older than Buddha, for it existed among forms of life very much earlier and lower than the human, and has, indeed, been a powerful factor in evolution. Speaking of "The Golden Rule" in his Confessions of Faith of a Man of Science Haeckel says:
In the human family this maxim has always been accepted as self-evident; as ethical instinct it was an inheritance derived from our animal ancestors. It had already found a place among the herds of apes and other social mammals; in a similar manner, but with wider scope, it was already present in the most primitive communities and among the hordes of the least advanced savages... their oldest prehistoric source, as Darwin has shown, is to be sought in the social instincts of animals...It is not to revelation that we owe the ideal of human brotherhood, but to evolution. (pg. 159--160)
Rightly or wrongly, I am a Democrat. Rightly or wrongly, I am for the rights of the masses as against the privileges of the classes. Rightly or wrongly, I am opposed to Godship, Kingship, Lordship, Priestship. Rightly or wrongly, I am opposed to Imperialism, Militarism, and conquest. Rightly or wrongly, I am for universal brotherhood and universal freedom. Rightly or wrongly, I am for union against disunion, for collective ownership against private ownership. Rightly or wrongly, I am for reason against dogma, for evolution against revelation; for humanity always; for earth, not Heaven; for the holiest Trinity of all -- the Trinity of man, woman, and child. (pg. 195)
notes
| [1] | See the reading Science for the Workers. |
| [2] | Compare what Kerr just said, which is the usual communist line, to what Julian Huxley said in Religion as an Objective Problem. |
| [3] | To prove his point that these are not cheap "sixpence science", he lists the price. Hilarious. But most of these are RPA books, and hence, also issued as sixpence science. Charles Watts was one of the founders of Rationalist Press Association. |
| [4] | I think Freethought published Haeckel books as well. |
| [5] | The influence of Frazer's book The Golden Bough is much underestimated. It is one of the wellsprings of the 'pagan copycat' and 'conspiracy' theories of Christianity. Modern promoters of these theories e.g., Gandy and Freke, Acharya S, Dan Brown etc., draw upon this and monistic material. It is interesting to see that many of the researchers and popularizers of these anti-Christianity theories were evolutionists like Haeckel and his followers. Julian Huxley recommends The Golden Bough in (if I recall correctly) his Essays of a Biologist. |
Ism ping!
Socialism is the religion of atheism and all its tenants and doctrines are anti Christ and therefore doomed to failure. The history of marxism is continued abject failure and the cost has always been blood, sorrow, death, and misery and though socialism always is vain, vain people continue to try and create a utopia out of sinners and without God and His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ, a nation is destined to failure as has been proved over and over again and again.
Unless the one true and living God of Israel be in it, the house is built in vain. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord but sin is a reproach to any people.
Come LORD Jesus, rule and reign in the midst of all thine enemies.
Which is the whole goal of this group to begin with.
So true.
It's enough to make you believe that these guys ghosts are posting on FR.
They think that if they can make one part of the Bible out to be a lie, they can make the whole thing out to be a lie.
The same goes for any part of the Bible, whether it's disproving the Flood, that certain people or groups of people never existed which were mentioned in the OT, that there's no *secular* or outside sources that mention Jesus to *verify* the Gospels, that the miracles done by Jesus were not really miracles after all, whatever the argument is to discredit Scripture.
If they can find an excuse to reject one part, no matter how insignificant, if justifies them rejecting it all.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
— Saint Augustine
You follow metmom around the same way Soliton did.
I post on science, tech and topics relating to defense and Texas - I am stalking no one.
Indeed so. For a socialist atheist, there's no question of considering a Christian anthropology: that is, man is made in the image of God. No soul, no sin, no redemption. The two avenues left for an atheist socialist who wishes improve man's lot are these: environment and/or heredity. That's all. And so it is clear why, in history, socialists have been haranguing each other over the relative importance of these two. In every case, socialism must degenerate into control of environment (totalitarianism) or control of heredity (eugenics) or an institution of both.
"I merely see that untrained minds attach themselves to words, and that it may be a waste of effort to try to detach them."
Key to the furious anger against any who question Darwinism... those untrained minds.
And
"As socialists, we realize that a religion arises from and corresponds to certain definite economic conditions. Christianity was originally a religion of consolation for slaves whose material condition was hopeless. Later it became an instrument of the ruling class for perpetuating slavery. But economic conditions are now making the longer continuance of slavery impossible, and the era of collectivism seems close at hand. What will be the religion corresponding to the conditions of freedom? I suspect that in English-speaking countries it will be a modified form of Christianity, stripped of its supernaturalism, its asceticism, its introspective ethics, its insistence on individual immortality, and other irrational ideas..."
Reads just like it was the play book for our most recent election. Thing of it is NOT one of these Social Darwinist will accept the responsibility for our present day economic conditions. It has been their scientific methodology that by law indoctrinates the majority of minds the past 40 years +.
And time and again I read some Darwinist post I am Christian.... yep as noted one cannot serve two masters and these gurus at the top of their fitness chart know this darn well as so stated above.
I can't understand why the Darwinists are NOT jumping up and down cheering along with their fellow travelers, just like Bama told the Republicans 'I won'.
The leaders of the day laughed Jesus to scorn.
The whole problem is that the infidels are working from the perspective that anything outside of Scripture that they have investigated themselves is true. It's the same old argument that when there's a conflict between *science* and Scripture, that science is by default correct and Scripture is wrong. That's presuming, with no basis, that what mankind has discovered outside of Scripture is true and right, when we've all been told often enough, that truth has no place in science.
There's simply no reason to assume that *science* is right and Scripture is wrong by default, except the desire is to make out parts of Scripture to be a lie so as to make all of it out to be a lie.
There are people in every avenue of life who don't know what they're talking about and are an embarrassment to who or what they represent, science included. After all, you guys have Dawkins representing you and the people who have written the articles which ECO has been posting to show what your history is.
But to blame the occasional person who is a bad representative of Christianity for the infidel not believing is just blame shifting and intellectually dishonest. It also does not say much for the intellectual prowess of the infidel if he can't distinguish between the message and the messenger.
Anyone who rejects Christianity because of the behavior of or intellectual ability of a person who calls themselves a Christian, is just looking for an excuse to reject it.
Except that you could have posted that comment in response to post number 1 as a general comment directed to *All*.
By posting it to me in particular, ECO is proved right and it gives lie to your statement that you are not stalking me, as you have been.
Too many people are onto you.
— Saint Augustine
We’ll stick with the author of the Holy Bible, not fallen man.
[Just mythoughts] Key to the furious anger against any who question Darwinism... those untrained minds
That's a very interesting statement by Kerr. If socialists merely stopped using common vocabulary that we are naturally attached to, what would happen? That's not the approach they take, though. They attach new (and nonsensical) meanings to common words. For example, 'human' means 'ape' now. Similarly 'good', 'evil', 'God', 'truth', 'proof', 'species', 'life', 'science', etc, do not mean what we think they mean in any discourse corrupted by socialism, atheism, and Darwinism. Of course all this, if allowed to fester unresisted, makes discourse between humans impossible... and the ultimate reduction of human communication to gibberish is in fact a socialist goal.
“Anyone who rejects Christianity because of the behavior of or intellectual ability of a person who calls themselves a Christian, is just looking for an excuse to reject it. “
Yet you reject modern science because of the behavior of a few - isn’t that something of a double standard?
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm
They all practice from the same handbook as part of the scientific methodology...
In any event, Alinsky's rules include:
"Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat."
"Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
"The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself."
"In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." (Think Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against conservatives and Republicans. Think of how Clinton "enemies" like Paula Jones or Linda Tripp were treated.)
"One of the criteria for picking the target is the target's vulnerability ... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract." (Trent Lott comes to mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got away with saying "nigger" on Fox News at least three times, and he still maintains his Senate seat and power.)
"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength." For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.
read later, and archive for future reference!
No, I don't. You really do need to stop spreading lies about me, as well.
I don't reject modern science and so can't be rejecting it because of the behavior of a few. I see past the behavior of those evos who post nothing but slurs against creationists and realize that they're science's liability.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.