MennoNet.com

This has been quoted several times recently. Obviously, no Christian will agree with Marx that religion should be abolished. But I think it's worth discussing what he said, why he said it, and what Christians believe instead. Here is the quote, as translated in Wikipedia.

Karl Marx wrote:The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

To me, the foundation of religion is that God exists, he is indeed God, he is worthy of praise and thanksgiving and obedience, and he has called us to be his people, giving up everything for his sake. Karl Marx says this: "Man makes religion, religion does not make man." Actually, God made man, religion did not. A lot of religion is man-made. Some of it is wrong-headed. I want the pure teaching of the Bible. I want to follow Jesus, to do what he said and did, to seek first the Kingdom of God.

But I think that Marx's criticism of religion was rooted in the fact that religion was often used to tell people to shut up and accept oppression, often in very deep suffering. He wanted people to take control of their own destiny, to band together and overthrow their oppressors by revolution. For Christians, violent revolution is not acceptable. But acknowledging real oppression and real suffering is. Jesus cared a LOT about the poor and marginalized. Suffering is real, but God is real, Jesus is real, and we can trust him deeply with our lives. We can also build Christian communities that live out his love together. We do not need to overthrow the government to do that.

It's not about religion, it's about God. If God were not real, religion would be insane. We need to be the Kingdom of God, not some right-wing or left-wing fantasy world. And that makes us strangers and aliens here. Marx says this: "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness". As Christians, there is no real happiness except in God. Marx wants us to "give up a condition that requires illusions". As Christians, we know that God is more real than the world we experience around us, and certainly more real than the groupthink narratives of the world we live in.

Religion actually CAN be exercised in just the way Marx describes. But God is our real relief when we face real suffering. And he often sends us out to minister to those who are suffering.

Karl Marx was writing almost two centuries ago in the 1840s. This was the the late Romantic Period. Mendelssohn, Chopin, and Schubert were changing classical music. Writers like Wordsworth, Emmerson, Shelly, Goethe, and Keats were changing poetry and literature. People were reacting to the worst changes brought on by the industrial revolution. And religion, especially the Catholic church was weaponized by the conservative aristocracy within Europe to resist the popular changes sweeping the continent that led up to the revolutions of 1848.

I don't think you can read Karl Marx without understanding the context in which he was writing any more than you can understand any of the other arts and literature and philosophy of the time. There was no separation of church and state in any part of Europe. Germany and Italy did not yet even exist as nations. And religion was largely a conservative political force wielded to resist change by convincing adherents to respect existing authorities as ordained by God and to instead by satisfied with their lot in life no matter how meager.

Bootstrap,
the idea of Marx was afaik that people shouldn't waste their time with hoping for a future happiness beyond the world, but join the communist (or, later, social-democrat) party and in this way provide for "their" happiness within this world.
This is of course a logical fallacy, because Marx saw people only as collectives, not as individuals. In fact people cannot by Marxist politics provide for their own happiness, but at best for the happiness of their offspring.
I don't think that the creation problem has much relevance (did God create man or man create God?). Unless we go a step further and maintain: As God created man he has a right to prescribe man what he has to do (regardless of man's happiness). But even people who go thus far often maintain that God wanted people to do just the same that Marx wanted them to do.

Ken wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:13 pm Karl Marx was writing almost two centuries ago in the 1840s. This was the the late Romantic Period. Mendelssohn, Chopin, and Schubert were changing classical music. Writers like Wordsworth, Emmerson, Shelly, Goethe, and Keats were changing poetry and literature. People were reacting to the worst changes brought on by the industrial revolution. And religion, especially the Catholic church was weaponized by the conservative aristocracy within Europe to resist the popular changes sweeping the continent that led up to the revolutions of 1848.

I don't think you can read Karl Marx without understanding the context in which he was writing any more than you can understand any of the other arts and literature and philosophy of the time. There was no separation of church and state in any part of Europe. Germany and Italy did not yet even exist as nations. And religion was largely a conservative political force wielded to resist change by convincing adherents to respect existing authorities as ordained by God and to instead by satisfied with their lot in life no matter how meager.

I think the relevance of Marx is largely as a warning against Marxism/Leninism and what it led to in the 20th Century. Just as the relevance of Hitler is as a warning against nationalistic authoritarianism and what it led to in the 20th Century. Both are real threats.

A great deal of modern Western political thought was based on the negative lessons we learned from Communism and Nazism.

PetrChelcicky wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:05 am Bootstrap,
the idea of Marx was afaik that people shouldn't waste their time with hoping for a future happiness beyond the world, but join the communist (or, later, social-democrat) party and in this way provide for "their" happiness within this world.
This is of course a logical fallacy, because Marx saw people only as collectives, not as individuals. In fact people cannot by Marxist politics provide for their own happiness, but at best for the happiness of their offspring.
I don't think that the creation problem has much relevance (did God create man or man create God?). Unless we go a step further and maintain: As God created man he has a right to prescribe man what he has to do (regardless of man's happiness). But even people who go thus far often maintain that God wanted people to do just the same that Marx wanted them to do.

Marxism is not the only attempt to create a society that could meet everyone's real needs, personal fulfillment, and create lasting "peace and security" for everyone. That is a humanist dream going at least as far back as pagan antiquity. Societal values unquestioned, absolutes, no need for any doubtful stressing. It was Christianity that showed all these humanist pipe dreams were impossible. God is in the heavens, not here on earth. No imminent permanent happiness available here on earth. The true telos of man is not immanent happiness, but God. Marx had it backwards.

Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:21 am

PetrChelcicky wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:05 am .. the idea of Marx was afaik that people shouldn't waste their time with hoping for a future happiness beyond the world, but join the communist (or, later, social-democrat) party and in this way provide for "their" happiness within this world.

This is of course a logical fallacy, because Marx saw people only as collectives, not as individuals. In fact people cannot by Marxist politics provide for their own happiness, but at best for the happiness of their offspring.
I don't think that the creation problem has much relevance (did God create man or man create God?). Unless we go a step further and maintain: As God created man he has a right to prescribe man what he has to do (regardless of man's happiness). But even people who go thus far often maintain that God wanted people to do just the same that Marx wanted them to do.

Marxism is not the only attempt to create a society that could meet everyone's real needs, personal fulfillment, and create lasting "peace and security" for everyone.

That is a humanist dream going at least as far back as pagan antiquity.
Societal values unquestioned, absolutes, no need for any doubtful stressing.

It was Christianity that showed all these humanist pipe dreams were impossible.
God is in the heavens, not here on earth. No imminent permanent happiness available here on earth.
The true telos of man is not immanent happiness, but God.

Marx had it backwards.

Yes. Ignorance of Truth, the reality of Jesus Christ - NATURALLY invites humanism and paganism.
There can be no surprise. Ignorance of history in general NATURALLY invites humanism and paganism.

Human nature, human reasoning. “Like the sun rising in the east.”

- - -

God offers choices. He wants to be chosen.
Humans want to force their will, even if the goals seem the same - “by force of the sword.”

2 very different outcomes with just that one “minor” distinction.

Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:21 am

PetrChelcicky wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:05 am Bootstrap,
the idea of Marx was afaik that people shouldn't waste their time with hoping for a future happiness beyond the world, but join the communist (or, later, social-democrat) party and in this way provide for "their" happiness within this world.
This is of course a logical fallacy, because Marx saw people only as collectives, not as individuals. In fact people cannot by Marxist politics provide for their own happiness, but at best for the happiness of their offspring.
I don't think that the creation problem has much relevance (did God create man or man create God?). Unless we go a step further and maintain: As God created man he has a right to prescribe man what he has to do (regardless of man's happiness). But even people who go thus far often maintain that God wanted people to do just the same that Marx wanted them to do.

Marxism is not the only attempt to create a society that could meet everyone's real needs, personal fulfillment, and create lasting "peace and security" for everyone. That is a humanist dream going at least as far back as pagan antiquity. Societal values unquestioned, absolutes, no need for any doubtful stressing. It was Christianity that showed all these humanist pipe dreams were impossible. God is in the heavens, not here on earth. No imminent permanent happiness available here on earth. The true telos of man is not imminent happiness, but God. Marx had it backwards.

I agree.

But let's not limit this to humanist pipe dreams. This includes all kinds of pipe dreams. Hitler was no humanist, neither are white nationalists or white supremacists or Black Muslims. At best, government can maintain order, build infrastructure, establish some of the preconditions for prosperity ... and those things are often worth doing. But no party or political figure or political program is our God. None of them is building the Kingdom of God. That's up to us.

Bootstrap wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 12:45 pm

Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:21 am

PetrChelcicky wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:05 am Bootstrap,
the idea of Marx was afaik that people shouldn't waste their time with hoping for a future happiness beyond the world, but join the communist (or, later, social-democrat) party and in this way provide for "their" happiness within this world.
This is of course a logical fallacy, because Marx saw people only as collectives, not as individuals. In fact people cannot by Marxist politics provide for their own happiness, but at best for the happiness of their offspring.
I don't think that the creation problem has much relevance (did God create man or man create God?). Unless we go a step further and maintain: As God created man he has a right to prescribe man what he has to do (regardless of man's happiness). But even people who go thus far often maintain that God wanted people to do just the same that Marx wanted them to do.

Marxism is not the only attempt to create a society that could meet everyone's real needs, personal fulfillment, and create lasting "peace and security" for everyone. That is a humanist dream going at least as far back as pagan antiquity. Societal values unquestioned, absolutes, no need for any doubtful stressing. It was Christianity that showed all these humanist pipe dreams were impossible. God is in the heavens, not here on earth. No imminent permanent happiness available here on earth. The true telos of man is not imminent happiness, but God. Marx had it backwards.

I agree.

But let's not limit this to humanist pipe dreams. This includes all kinds of pipe dreams. Hitler was no humanist, neither are white nationalists or white supremacists or Black Muslims. At best, government can maintain order, build infrastructure, establish some of the preconditions for prosperity ... and those things are often worth doing. But no party or political figure or political program is our God. None of them is building the Kingdom of God. That's up to us.

The point was the new totalitarian goals were really just the same old humanist dream in new garb, because it's a universal temptation. I doubt anyone here needed it spelled out for them.

Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:47 pm The point was the new totalitarian goals were really just the same old humanist dream in new garb, because it's a universal temptation. I doubt anyone here needed it spelled out for them.

Here's why I said what I did: I think Christians need to be guided by the Bible. Sometimes we may find ourselves agreeing with humanists about things like the value of human life and the need to care for the poor. Sometimes we may find ourselves agreeing even with Nazis. Whatever Jesus said and did, that's our guide, whether it agrees with or conflicts with humanism or any other philosophy.

But we need to know that there are real dangers in all political alliances. Want a rosy future for your country? Want to fight Marxism? Here's a political party that wants to rise to the challenge:

Adolph HItler wrote:In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.