I am not sure what you mean by a "reconsideration. " — Valentinus

Well, I was going to address this but the discussion went a bit off track and I had other things to do.

I will try to explain. In the last hundred years, Christianity in the Western World has changed almost beyond recognition. Especially from the 1950s onward, the Church has become increasingly involved in politics, usually of a leftist inclination, becoming in many cases little more than a charity organization attached to civil-rights movements and similar causes. As a result, it has lost many followers.

In my opinion, the reason behind this lies in the ways the central Gospel commandments, “Thy shalt love the Lord thy God” and “Thy shalt love your neighbour” have been interpreted or misinterpreted.

Christianity in the Gospels is referred to in certain specific terms such as “the Way of the Lord”, “the Way of Truth” and “the Way of Righteousness”. Such phrases encapsulate the essence of what Christianity is about: Christianity acknowledges God, who is the embodiment of Truth, Order and Justice, as the supreme authority and pledges itself to follow his Law and walk in his ways, in the Way of Righteousness, at all times.

Christianity’s first and greatest commandment, “Thy shalt love the Lord thy God” is also reflected in its central creed which says “I believe in One God, the Almighty Father”, in a clear recognition of God’s supreme authority and man’s duty to submit to his Will and follow his Law. This has been the inspiration and backbone of the Church and of the Christian World for two millennia.

What happened in the 1900s was that emphasis shifted more and more from the first commandment to the second, and concern for social issues gradually replaced concern for religious and spiritual matters. This has undermined the spiritual authority of the Church and has allowed it to become a tool in the hands of social and political movements with no spiritual objectives.

I think the decline of Christianity in the Western World can only be reversed by the correct "reinterpretation" or "reconsideration" of these two central commandments which together have always formed the very foundation of the Christian Faith.

It is apparent that only a very few people claim to have memories of previous lives. So if we take them at their word, reincarnation is a very rare thing indeed. — Banno

Not at all. Your second statement doesn't follow from the first. If only a few people claim to have memories of previous lives this may simply mean that only a few have the capacity to remember those lives not that those lives didn't happen.

That's exactly the position of Buddhist and other texts. Everybody has had past lives and everybody can develop the capacity to remember them by following certain mental training techniques as explained in my previous posts. If thousands of Buddhist monks had done those mental exercises for centuries without any result whatsoever, then I'm sure the truth would have come out by now.

My position wasn't to equate Christianity to Marxism, but it was to respond to your post that Marxism did not respect the rule of law. You're pointing out in this post that the law followed by Marxist nations has been historically brutal, but that's a concession there is a rule of law, the thing you deny. — Hanover

Sorry but I think that's a (deliberate?) misinterpretation of my comment.

Marx was not an Anarchist, he was a Statist at least in the Socialist phase. His Socialist State was a DICTATORSHIP, the "dictatorship of the proletariat". In a dictatorship, the ruling party doesn't rule according to law but according to its own decrees or diktats.

That's what I meant: he believed that a socialist government would be above the law, not that there would be no laws in the absolute sense of the word. And this was exactly what was implemented by his later followers.

In Communist countries like Soviet Russia and the Communist Bloc, a country would have an official legal code, but the ruling Communist Party would take the law into its own hands as it pleased, for example, by ordering courts to sentence people to death without due process or simply arresting, jailing or executing them without any trial.

In other words, the law was there but wasn't applied. The state was "above the law".

I'm not a Marxist, so I don't defend it, but I don't believe it a tenant of communism that there be anarchy with the absence of law. Those nations I've seen claiming to be Marxist tend toward totalitarianism, which is a superabundance of law. — Hanover

Marx said very clearly that the socialist state which is a transitional phase from capitalism to communism is a dictatorship (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875). And there is much more:

“A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists” - F Engels, “On Authority”, Almanaco Republicano, 1874

Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and others (State and Revolution, Terrorism and Communism, etc.) clearly base their ideas on Marx and Engels' own statements.

Quite different from Christianity, really.

Why does it take time? Because most of what philosophers write is a reaction to something, and without being at least somewhat aware if not conversant with what that something is, it is no easy matter to understand what the philosopher is saying. But that does not stop or even slow down many people, hence the fool. — tim wood

Correct. Didn't Socrates say that he couldn't understand why the oracle called him the wisest man?

Philosophy as understood in Ancient Greece was a way of life. It had to be lived to be understood. This is not to say that no fake philosophers existed even in those times. However, nowadays, in the absence of a living teacher, people read stuff like Plato's Symposium and imagine that philosophy was about quaffing wine mixed with water, admiring pretty boys and making speeches. Nothing further from the truth.

Few people in those days would have written a theoretical paper on philosophy without knowing what they were talking about, quite apart from the fact that the most important teachings were transmitted orally, from master to disciple. But, obviously, this day and age things are slightly different.

Correct. Christianity at least believes in the rule of law, Communism doesn't. Marx himself wrote that the concept of the rule of law is "obsolete verbal rubbish" and this was faithfully followed by Lenin and others. Don't forget Marx believed in dictatorship as the central feature of the socialist state and he gave the Paris Commune as an example and model for socialist society.

God shouldn't be treated as one's buddy. — baker

I fully agree with that. Otherwise we can easily start imagining that we are "God's brother" or something and maybe one day even that we are another "God" which would amount to the sin of idolatry and blasphemy and might land us in a mental clinic or worse. It isn't unheard-of.

Like many elderly non-believers or agnostics, I know Christianity on a first hand basis as my first "operating system". There is plenty in it that can function in the pejorative meanings of "opium" or "opiate", as well as ameliorative meanings, — Bitter Crank

However, that applies equally, if not more so, to Communism and other atheistic systems. Millions died because Stalin and Mao imagined that the agricultural sector could be run on purely Marxist principles without reference to practical knowledge of farming. Just an example, there are many more.

"spiritual salvation" delivered in the absence of love (agape) or absent concern for the person's wellbeing, results in the missionary position of ramming Jesus down their throat — Bitter Crank

I think you're jumping to unexamined conclusions there. I never said "in the absence of concern". What I said is that concern for a person's spiritual wellbeing is more important, not that it must replace concern for their material or physical wellbeing. True Christians do not "ram Jesus down people's throats". The established Church policy is to spread Christianity through persuasion, not coercion.

But we can't go in the opposite direction either and make the Church into a mere charity organization as has been the trend of late.

The ‘some people’ that I respect are among the the most notable philosophers ( and psychologists) of the past 100 years, and they find Marx to be a seminal thinker. So you would have to go down that long list and explain why those thinkers should also be de-valued. — Joshs

However, there is an extensive literature on the inconsistencies of Marxist theories and concepts and in my experience objective academics tend to acknowledge them when they are informed of their existence.

See for example:

Richard Adamiack, ‘The “Withering Away” of the State: A Reconsideration’

Frederic L. Bender, “The Ambiguities of Marx’s concepts of ‘proletarian dictatorship’ and ‘transition to communism’”

See also the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Criticism of Marxism

I've addressed this on the other thread, "Marxism - philosophy or hoax?" and there is no point repeating myself here.

What makes all this into woo-woo is that so many people insist on being Humpy Dumpty -- "When I use a word" -- they say in a scornful tone -- "it means exactly what I choose it to mean!!" — baker

Sadly, this seems to be the case here.

Do you know of a philosopher who didn’t borrow from others? — Joshs

Sure. But Marx borrowed copiously. Even the Communist Manifesto (1848) was largely based on the Manifesto of Democracy in the 19th Century (1847) by Victor Considerant and the Communist Credo (1846) by Moses Hess.

What I'm saying is Marx is far less original than some people think.

The bottom line is that I don't put much stock in second-hand "accounts" and hear-say anecdotes about events that I have never observed in my own experience. — Gnomon

That's a perfectly reasonable approach. However, when I say "reliable accounts" I mean reliable accounts i.e. accounts that are about as close to established fact as you can get, not mere hear-say.

Plus, don't forget that even when we accept scientific theories we tend to do it on faith as we have no possibility of personally verifying all the claims that science makes.

Religion is only one (intuitive) way to respond; philosophy is another (inferential) way; and, perhaps, art, science or crime are other responses too (pace Kierkegaard). — 180 Proof

Yes, there are many paths to the same goal.

I want to chime in anyway. — James Riley

Please do.

I think what you're referring to is what the Bible might call "righteous struggle" or "good fight":

"Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called" - 1 Timothy 6:12

"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith" - 2 Timothy 4:7

That's exactly what it is, a fight, an inner struggle with intellectual and emotional tendencies that block our path to spiritual progress. And this is why faith, the cultivation of virtues and the observance of righteousness is recommended as an aid in our effort to overcome such obstacles:

"Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness ..." - Ephesians 6:14

Elsewhere the "helmet of hope" is mentioned, i.e. the mental and spiritual armor that enables us to fight and win.

This is why Jesus himself said "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword (the sword of righteousness)" - Matthew 10:34

Even if we don't believe in God, we can always believe in a good cause.

I do live with a sense that I need to create myself as a better person, and hopefully do some good that will make everyone's lives better now and in the future. — Athena

That pretty much encapsulates what philosophy is about.

As for reincarnation, and I think this also touches on @Jack Cummins' observation, it was a theory that operated on more than just one level. One of the aims of Greek philosophy was to expand man's consciousness, or "open the eye of the heart", to higher realities. Thinking of reincarnation, even as a theoretical possibility, served the purpose of expanding human consciousness in the same way astronomy (which was also an important element in philosophy) focused the mind on the heavenly world above. In other words, reincarnation served a very important psychological and spiritual purpose. Accomplished philosophers were no ordinary men, they were qualified and experienced spiritual masters and guides who knew what their were doing, hence the paramount importance of the master-disciple relationship. This can sometimes be difficult to appreciate for modern man who either has no access to a qualified teacher or who, following the default approach of materialistic, consumer-orientated society, thinks he can construct his own philosophy or spiritual "ladder to heaven" from bits of materials gleaned from the Internet or from books. This is not to discourage individual effort. As they say, when the disciple is ready the teacher, in whatever form or shape including life itself, appears. But it remains that there is a qualitative difference between learning by yourself and learning under a teacher or in a group which means that misinterpretation or misunderstanding of original sources or teachings can happen rather more easily than we think.

I think loving thy neighbor may require all the above, if not more... . Of course, knowing that it's almost always through others that we achieve our goals, Love may, just be a mutual respect for those that one engages with...(doesn't mean that it precludes tough love). In that context, reciprocity goes a long way... . — 3017amen

That makes sense to me.

Why do you keep bringing up Marx? — counterpunch

I don't. I only said that he attacked Christian communists for whom love of God and the neighbor was a central issue. That seemed to have rattled your social anthropologist sensibilities which isn't my fault.

Plus, the close links between social anthropology and Marxism are well known, just google it and you can see for yourself:

“Anthropology, however, has maintained an air of Marxism due to the tendency for anthropologists to promote a social justice orientation. Neo-Marxism has become more pervasive under the name of Political Economy. Contemporary Political Economy focuses on the tangible disparities between differing socioeconomic groups due to political influences.”

“The influence of biologistic determinism and naturalistic evolutionism upon the thinking of would-be 'scientific' socialists is well illustrated in the career of that most prolific of the popularizers of Marx, Karl Kautsky.”

“Marxism within anthropology first emerged as part of anthropology’s critique of colonialism in the 1960’s and 1970’s (Wallerstein 2004; Roseberry 1998) ..." etc. etc.

The Greeks were practical people. To be wise (sophos) meant to be clever or skillful in practical things. But the gods were acknowledged to be wiser or more skillful than men, hence the ideal became to be wise like the gods or like God.

As Socrates put it, God alone deserves to be called “wise”. Humans could only aspire to be wise like God as far as humanly possible. In this sense, philosophy is the effort humans make in becoming as “wise as God” as possible, especially in spiritual, religious, and ethical matters but also in other fields such a mathematics, astronomy, etc. which formed an important part of Greek philosophy. As can be seen from Plato's writings and other sources, this could even include politics.

And Jews and Muslims, but not rational agnostics. That's called discrimination, and I take exception to it! I'm officially offended by your discriminatory micro-aggressions toward the agnostic. — counterpunch

Oh, really? You may twist and bend it as much as you like but I'm talking about the approach here, not about a person's beliefs. Social anthropology isn't what I had in mind.

And anyway, you seem to forget that the first thinkers to address the problem of social justice were Christians. Long before atheists like Marx. People weren't just capitalists, they were also Christians. They didn't need Marx and, quite frankly, he was ignored by the vast majority and rightly so.

Maybe that's a theological or doctrinal interpretation; but I'm doing social anthropology. What it means as the word of God is of less interest to me than what it means socially and politically, — counterpunch

Well, I did say "Christian philosophers" so I'm taking a religious-philosophical approach if you don't mind.

But seeing that you’re into social anthropology and politics, there is an interesting discussion on the other thread at "Marxism – philosophy or hoax?"

You talk about something anecdotal to criticize what you haven't bothered to read.You talk about something anecdotal to criticize what you haven't bothered to read. — gikehef947

That's a pretty anecdotal statement in itself the way I see it.

There are many unanswered questions about consciousness, but that doesn't mean that consciousness doesn't exist, or that consciousness isn't more than brain activity. — Sam26

Correct. As testified by trustworthy people, "paranormal experience" such as telepathy, clairvoyant dreams and the like, rare though it may be, does exist. And this logically suggests that something like "consciousness" or "mind" can operate and exist independently of the physical body. Therefore it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand just because some people find the concept unsettling or beyond their intellectual abilities.

Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates this ideal rather dramatically, showing that one's neighbour includes people from the out-group. A Samaritan, no less, a foe of the Jews, is described as an exemplar of the ideal neighbor. A provocative notion even today when groups and cultures seem to be so divided and hateful of the other. — Tom Storm

Correct. However, what is interesting and I think important, is that "love thy neighbor" doesn't seem to be an absolute law as it is qualified in very clear terms.

For example, the Bible says "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (1 Timothy 5:8).

And Augustine: “God is to be adored while the neighbor is to be helped insofar as it is permissible and laid down” – De Quantitate Animae 34, 78

And, as already stated, to love our neighbor means above all to bring them to the right path, the Path of Righteousness as the Christian Way is called in the Bible, and assist them in walking in it.

But "thou shalt love the Lord thy God" remains at all times "the first and greatest commandment".

Famously, communists got rid of God and put the state in His place — counterpunch

I don’t think the Communists got rid of God. They tried but they failed.

But the point I was making was that there are two important distinctions to be drawn, (1) between what is commonly understood by “love” and (2) between “love of God” and “love of our neighbor”.

As Augustine puts it:

“Thus are fulfilled those two commandments on which hang all the law and the prophets: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy mind, and will all thy soul;” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” […] And so, when one who has this intelligent self-love is commanded to love his neighbour as himself, what else is enjoined than that he shall do all in his power to commend to him the love of God. This is the worship of God, this is true religion, this right piety, this the service due to God only.” – City of God, X 3

We can only properly love our neighbor if we know how to love our selves and we can only properly love ourselves if we know how to love God.

The basic Christian creed or profession of faith that makes one a Christian says “I believe in one God, the Almighty Father” (Πιστεύω εις ένα Θεόν Πατέρα Παντοκράτορα).

God is called Father, Pateras (Πατέρας), because he creates, sustains and rules the world in the same way as a father may be said to be the creator, provider and ruler of a family. In antiquity, the father was the lord and master of the family, pater familias. He was never addressed by his personal name but only as “Father” and this is still the case in traditional families or communities.

For the same reason, God/Theos (Θεός) in the Bible is referred to as “Father/Pateras (Πατέρας)” and “Lord/Kyrios (Κύριος)”, to emphasize the fact that he is the supreme authority to whom the whole of creation, including mankind, owes unconditional obedience.

In the biblical sense to love God means first of all “always walking in his ways and keeping his commandments” in a show of obedience, of acknowledgment of his authority, in fact, as the only authority: “there is no other God but one”, δεν υπάρχει άλλος Θεός παρά μόνο ένάς (Προς Κορινθίους α’ 8:4).

So, basically, only when we understand what is meant by love of God can we understand what it means to love ourselves and what it means to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.

Perhaps the brain may not be so much the source of consciousness as a window onto it, an intersection point. — Pantagruel

I think it wouldn't be wrong to assume this to be the case.

As already stated, the reason I chose to describe soul as "intelligent energy" or "consciousness" is that the Platonic texts describe it as having intelligence and powers or energies. Of course, there may be other/better ways of describing it in philosophical or scientific terms.

I don't know whether you are countering my claim, or agreeing with it. Sounds like countering, but you are actually agreeing. — god must be atheist

So we agree then.

Considered in these terms, the passage reads like a simple statement of the political purpose of religion, to create a common moral world view through faith in the same God, and so 'love thy neighbour.' — counterpunch

That’s an interesting statement. I was just flicking through Communist writings to see what Communists had to say about love.

For example, Moses Hess writes: “And according to the eternal law of love, the Christians had to share their knowledge of God with the whole world.” (The Holy History of Mankind”). In A Communist Credo he says: “Which religion should we all confess? The religion of love and humanity”.

Surprisingly, many Communists in those days (around 1840s) believed in love although, perhaps less surprisingly, they were attacked by other Communists like Marx.

But what is interesting is that Hess associates Christian love with “sharing knowledge of God with the whole world”. This suggests that an essential aspect of Christian love is not as some might assume having an attitude of affection, etc. toward our neighbor or even concern for his material wellbeing, but primarily concern for his or her spiritual salvation.

If we go to early Christian thinkers like St Augustine we find that they confirm this view. This means that "loving God" and "loving your neighbor" does not mean what is commonly understood by the term "love".

Then quote the parts you take issue with. — Valentinus

“Socialists from Marx and Engels onwards have always held that with the establishment of Socialism the State will disappear”

The Withering Away of the State – From Marx to Stalin, Marxists Internet Archive

Withering away of the state, Wikipedia Article

Original German text in Marx-Engels Werke (MEW), Vol. 20, p. 262:

“An die Stelle der Regierung über Personen tritt die Verwaltung von Sachen und die Leitung von Produktionsprozessen. Der Staat wird nicht »abgeschafft«, er stirbt ab.

English translation in Marx-Engels Collected Works (MECW), Vol. 23, p. 268:

“State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and then dies out of itself: the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away”

A state that assumes an administrative function can't "wither away"

The OP provides links to articles by historians discussing the inconsistency of concepts like "the withering away of the state". It isn't something that I've made up.

a researcher by the name of Ian Stevenson assembled a considerable body of data on children with recall of previous lives. — Wayfarer

I think he's saying that many children report being somebody else or describe things connected to a recently deceased person that they wouldn't have any knowledge of, as soon as they start to speak. While in the West parents tend to dismiss such claims, they tend to be taken more seriously in societies where reincarnation is a common belief and, on inquiry, it is often found that the information provided by the child about the deceased person is correct.

Why would you need to justify it in any terms, once you have already accepted it? — god must be atheist

Why would you need to explain something in scientific terms once you have already accepted it?

Tapeworms and polio bacili are seldom referred to a cuddly little creatures. — god must be atheist

That's what I'm saying. Bat viruses like Covid-19 may or may not have evil intentions at birth, but what if they develop some later or if someone releases them on the world as a form of biological weapon?

One is to recognize his innovations and go beyond him. — Joshs

What "innovations"? Utopian socialism? Communism? Atheism? Class war? Revolution? Economic theories? All borrowed from others!

This is not to say that the soul is a field, but that it might be much more conceivable in terms of fields than of particles, or of energy. — Wayfarer

Well, personally, I called the soul a form of "intelligent energy" because it has the power of self-awareness and knowledge as well as other powers or "energies" (Greek ἐνέργεια energeia).

You can't say something has powers or energies but it isn't a power, energy or force. I'm talking about Greek philosophy, of course, not Buddhism.

But the problem with non-believers in the soul is that they tend to believe that if there is no scientific description of a thing then it doesn't exist. A bit like a blind man who believes that because he can't see color it can't possibly exist.

If you want to escape the influence of Marx in rigorous philosophy, you generally have to find philosophers born before 1840. — Joshs

Marx and "rigorous philosophy"?

You mean like this bit from "The German Ideology"?

“... in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner …”

More like utopian idealism IMO

So all you're really saying is something like a universal soul or mind or patterns of attachment is/are constantly dying and being reincarnated as every subsequent being? — Janus

Not quite. The Universal Intelligence (Nous) emanates individual intelligences or souls (nous/psyche) which are reborn time and again until they eventually return to their original source like sea waves rising from and subsiding back into the sea. But that's just one way of looking at it.

How many Joules in a soul? — Banno

How many Joules in anger or fear?

As for 'mind', the term refers to an object that bears mental states. — Bartricks

I get that. I normally refer to it as "consciousness" or "intelligence" in itself, like the Universal Intelligence or Nous (with a capital "N"), whereas by "mind" I tend to mean the individual consciousness or intelligence (nous with lower-case "n") especially in the embodied state. It doesn't really matter though.

It's the opinion of those who studied the subject. Read Plato, Plotinus, and other philosophers. That's why I asked how reincarnation may be justified in philosophical terms.

What is true in the present or the future depends how things go. — ssu

And things usually go depending on what's true in the present.