How would this be accomplished without a totalitarian form of government? And how does one decide who is "stupid" and "incompetent"? If they're expected to act like responsible adults, then they have less incentive to act in an irresponsible manner. The solution isn't some arbitrary, totalitarian standard; it's to stop subsidizing irresponsible behavior.
Just because someone is "stupid" does not necessarily mean that they're more inclined to act immorally. In fact, the worst crimes against humanity were usually perpetrated by the so-called "intellectuals" of the time. Individuals with a sense of superiority over others tend to have an easier time justifying the evil acts they commit. I don't think anyone said that being conscious was the only factor in "deserving freedom". "2+2=4" is only objectively true if you make certain assumptions about reality and logic. For instance, we must assume that 2=2 in order for that equation to be true, but why would we assume such a thing when you've effectively discounted the innate ability of humans to use abstract reasoning? Indeed, in order for "2+2=4" to be objectively true, we must assume that reality and logic exist in the first place. If you believe that moral truisms cannot be arrived at using human reason, then you are effectively discounting the objective nature of language, math, science, and even reality itself, because if human reason is incapable of ascertaining moral truths, then there is no objective or self-consistent reason why it can be used to ascertain any truths. Why is it objectively wrong? Aren't the assumptions you're making about that equation entirely arbitrary? Isn't the sequence of symbols - indeed, the very symbols themselves - you've used to communicate that thought arbitrary as well? It's not like the words "objectively wrong" actually "exist", except as an abstraction in your mind, which, really, is no different than morality, yet you used those words, those symbols, as if they had some kind of objective meaning that could be ascertained by others. Why?
I think if you read some of the commentary related to the Consitution from the "founding fathers". You would understand that the Constitution was in large part created to free folks from religions persecution .. not bind them to it. Here are just a few examples of some of the thoughts of the "founding" fathers. You have been misled !
Yes, he is. Again how does this render his anarchic tendencies void? 'My kingdom is NOT of this world,' remember. He never "pretended anything" - he was making a pragmatic statement, not an oath to Caesar. It has only been Christian theologians that have exploited this remark. But to say it discounts all his other clear orders on how to act is just stupid. Sure mate. Go to the links I provided and show the error: http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/232342-jesus-socialist-12.html#post1060870012 No they are not, unless you can explain why. Plus, if this were the case, it would render everything Jesus taught as void which would make Jesus not only an idiot but entirely insane. Does it represent the authority Jesus wants us all to follow? So you advocate a restoration of the Ancient Roman Empire? Sure mate, you keep saiyng that you have not once refuted my claim.
Just guessing I think Jesus would set up a government that was a theocracy and social-communistic, but not like any example that man has created. Now I am saying this with the understanding for this discussion that Jesus can't wave his supernatural hand and make things happen. If he were bound by temporal constraints he would want everyone to have and there not be have nots. Man is too greedy to implement a true communist system or even a good socialist system. With Jesus at the helm I am sure greed would not be an issue. reva
I disagree. I think to say man is to greedy, especially yourself being a Christian, is to say Jesus had no chance in hell - which would beg the question why he bothered. But I believe humans can indeed associate like that - and do so freely. You can find examples of near successful manifestations of such organization in places as diverse as Paris and the farming hills of Vietnam. Often the major cause of failure has been external force.
You are measuring from your own cup it seems. Doing so you understand the world in only one way, the way of the unbeliever. If you knew scripture there is an reoccurring theme and its that man is greedy and sinful and not fit to stand before God unless he repents etc. Before Jesus came the only way to be cleansed and saved was strict adherence to the 600+ laws of Moses. What Jesus offered was a way to cleanse the spiritual and temporal dirt of man, to wash away sin (which includes greed) by his blood, ie by his sacrifice which allowed us (Christians) salvation and to be cleansed by grace rather to the adherence to the old law. So your claim makes little sense, especially when we know that Jesus had a very good chance and hell played no part. The existence of 2b still sinful (ie still greedy) but repented (I hope) and forgiven Christians prove my point. Yes, the external force (greed) has never changed since the time of Jesus and before, ie for the love of money is the root of all evil. Again no government of man has lasted but for a flash in the pan of time. As per scripture when Jesus returns we get a preview of his government, and it as I indicated, one where he rules (a theocracy) and where no one wants for anything (socialist). That is partly what I based my comment on, that and related scripture. Of course as I pointed out the government of JC would differ significantly from traditional socialism and communism etc. Reva
I disagree. I find I am looking at the claim you made is both self defeating and incorrect. Sure but I don't recall it saying man is incapable of change as you said. Nah, that's way too vague and contrived. More likely Jesus was contraversial thinker who preached what he thought was a philosophy of living best available for humans to find self fulfilment. All the spiritual stuff seems mostly contrived and exagerated. Jesus was most likely a Jew but not a god. He didn't have a hope in he'll. In fact god created the prime conditions of his death, If as you say god was the designer of Judaism since the authorities had to dispell of rebels and those they considered false prophets in fact the bible orders Jews to kill false prophets. But what I am disputing which you have not validated is the claim that humanity is incapble of rectification. Why didn't Jesus appear today when his message could be freely spread and he could have actually enacted his philosophy? Either god is the cruelest being alive or more likely Jesus was persecuted in a set of social conditions incapable of accepting and facilitating his freedom to preach his thoughts. No forgiven Christians prove your point wring. If some people can refrain from being greedy so can everyone else. That would most certainly include the kingdom of god's people. You seem to be forgetting that whilst greed has been around forever so has altruism. So this point doesn't seem to justify your pessimism. seems more like the death of Jesus passed the power of god to us. God literally as a power and idea died with Jesus in that sense. He showed people they could act as he did and 'love one another as he loved us.'
If someone can point out where Jesus said to steal from the rich, then you can call him a socialist. But encouraging people to be charitable and give freely is not socialism. Let's get real, liberals. You don't even want Jesus on your side. You celebrate crucifixes soaked in urine as "art." The only reason you want to call Jesus a socialist is to try to (*)(*)(*)(*) off Christian conservatives.
Pure baseless rhetoric no substance, I could say in reply ; I disagree. I find I am looking at the claim you made is both self defeating and incorrect and be just as accurate as you were. Again you attempt to deceive and misdirect. I said man is Greedy by nature. He is. Well you are in the minority and are entitled to your opinion. However your comment goes against the spirit of the OT as well so get with the program or shut up pleaseĀ ha ha~ Are you feeling well? Your spelling and grammar is typically rotten this morning. Jesus WAS God, again in the spirit of the OT and of course IMO. So yes, he knew what was coming and what he had to do to save man. And he accomplished exactly that. Jews killed many people. The culture was different thousands of years ago, but we are going off topic, so please get back ON TOPIC and do not attempt to derail this thread with insults etc about Jesus God or religion. It has no place in this discussion. Incapable eh? I am sorry but you usually dont make so many mistakes...Anyway, I did not say that. You said I said that, which is a common tactic of yours. I am not sure if you are being malicious or just aren't paying attention or worse. If you would USE QUOTE TAGS we would not have that problem. So please read my lips; I did not say that man could not change, I said he is naturally greedy. He can and does overcome that desire, or urge constantly. Nevertheless it remains a part of our nature. It's probably closely linked with self preservation, another of the strongest emotions, or base instinct , however even the desire for our own survival can be set aside in some situations. Lastly, there are some things that we will never know until we meet God, or in your case whoever ha haĀ Wring? Maybe its not that you are feeling bad maybe your spelling mistakes are because you are feeling good? Ha ha hee hee...ahhhh... But no forgiven Christians only prove that they are forgiven. Your rambling and I am having a difficult time in following your 'logic'. Yes and? Anyone is capable of setting aside the greed, however IMO it still exists in your and my psyche. I am no registered or certified psychologist or psychiatrist, still I think even though people that go through religious and other type of change may seemingly eliminate such things as greed from themselves, but I highly doubt its gone. They simply learn how to defeat it. Really I do not know how this is on topic. I am not a pessimist, I have faith that one day God will create a paradise on earth and beyond. Concerning the natural world, I am a realist. Again. to make sure you get this; I did not say that man was incapable of change. As far as saying socialism and communism goes I remain convinced neither can work indefinitely. I make that statement by observing history. No government of man has or IMO will ever be successful without constant change etc. In a way Jesus did pass the power to us and scripture indicates that very clearly. We Christians are the tangible hands and mouthpiece for the now supernatural God. We are a conduit to the supernatural realm. We do help prophesy to come to fruition because its an instruction from God VIA the bible. However we can not expect to carry the entire mantle of God. Without God the fulfillment of prophesy would not happen at all. I see no reason why God died with Jesus, they tried that bit of nonsense in the 60's. It did not work then and has even less of a chance now harm Christianity. We are getting WAY off topic. Again I will say I stand by my original claim that Jesus would set up the type of government I indicated. I suggest you get some sleep. reva
In reality Jesus would set up a government like we have never seen. The lion will lie with the lamb because the natural world will be changed. The very natural laws of physics will change when Jesus returns. A new universe and a new earth as per scripture (well at least a new earth). No decay, no oceans on earth, Jerusalem will hover like like a giant spacecraft in the sky miles long and square. Yes to an unbeliever this sounds silly or like myth but it will happen, and God bless humankind when it does happen~ for the real king of kings will have arrived. Reva
How so? Actually there are many many people who would disagree with that. Socialism is about voluntary participation - hence some think true socialism can only exist with anarchy. Take, for example, the famous American anarchist Benjamin Tucker. Gonna cry about liberals now eh? Who is "you"? LOL nah that would just be an added incentive for them I think, not the driving force.
After thinking the logical conclusion of our talks would be it ending abruptly without being completed, as per usual, I thought I'd skip to this... I'm curious if you;d agree the kind of society you mention fits the definitions I gave myself here: http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/232342-jesus-socialist-12.html#post1060870012 ps. none of what I said before was baseless or inaccurate. You missed the phrase "man is too greedy" that you wrote early. Anyway...
Idk, it's just that all these welfare queens having 10 low IQ kids and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag notsosmart guys reproducing with them irks me. If not for welfare, then we'd have to worry about them attacking everyone for food...and also, taking low-skill jobs from people that are smart, but just starting out in life. (*)(*)(*)(*) them. I just have an emotional urge to (*)(*)(*)(*) 'em over. See above
2=2 is an objective identity. Humans being able to use reasoning of any sort, has nothing to do with there existing a set of morals/guidelines for behavior etc. that's objectively the "right way to be". Yes. Which has nothing to do with personal preferences such as morality, justice etc. Moral truisms-if by that you mean "it's objectively wrong to kill person A under these conditions" etc.-don't exist. They can't be arrived at using anything, human reason included. It's just that some things are subjective/personal preferences, some are objective. Morals and justice are subjective and are personal preferences. Identity. 2=2 because of identity. That's not arbitrary, that's simply the only possible way it is. Self-consistency, and also self-containment, are the two things needed for any statement to be objectively true. Identity is of course one way of something being both self-consistent and self-contained.
Does anyone disagree that Jesus the Christ would have been a perfect Communist, if only he had been at the right place at the right time, for the right task?
Jesus taught that if you owed taxes that you should pay them. The difference between having the government control the economy by imposing heavy taxes (among other practices) and giving the individual free will to invest the way they see fit is an argument of charity versus force. Christ did not advocate force, but instead free choice. Giving to charity is a result from a desire to willingly help others. Jesus would not have advocated statist governmental models because it forces everyone to participate... Or else.
Do you agree or disagree that welfare policies can serve to incentivize the kind of behavior you're wanting to reduce?
Yes. But I'd say prevention is better than reaction in this case..in other words, don't allow certain irresponsible people to even reproduce till they prove otherwise.
Why should it be? Why should the concept of "equality" mean anything? It's not like it "exists", except as a random series of electrical-chemical signals in your brain, which is the same for morality. If you believe that humans can ascertain mathematical truths such as "2+2=4" or "2=2" using their reason, then there is no reason to believe they cannot ascertain moral truths in the same way. Ultimately, "math" is just as arbitrary and ephemeral as "morality". They're both just constructs of the mind. It's not like the equation "2+2=4" actually exists; it doesn't possess properties; it cannot be observed; so what is it, aside from an abstraction in your mind? Of course it does. In order for math equations such as "2+2=4" to have any validity, we must first assume that reason, indeed, reality itself, "exist" in the first place, but since those assumptions are contingent entirely upon our ability to perceive reality through the mind, there is no reason to believe such assumptions are valid, at least, according to the logic you're employing. Asserting your opinion is no longer necessary. I'm well aware of your position. Now I expect you to defend it using reason and logic. If you maintain that moral truths cannot be arrived at, then you must explain why. You've yet to do that. What's "identity"? And why should it mean anything to me? Why should the arbitrary symbols you're using to convey this thought mean anything to me or to anyone else? Why?
