Innocent Children of Guilty Parents

[Nathan Poe]

The snows of yesterday,
they are not departed and gone.
They were waiting for me when
I thought that I just can't go on.
They brought me their promise
and later they brought me this song
I hope you run into them, you who have
travelled so long....

(Apologies to Leonard.)

Whatever happened to Saturday night
When you dressed up sharp and you felt alright?
It don't seem the same since cosmic light
Came into my life, I thought I was divine...
I used to go for a ride with a chick who'd go
And listen to the music on the radio
A saxophone was blowin' on a rock & roll show.
You climbed in the back seat, you really had a good time.
Hot patootie, bless my soul, I really love that rock 'n' roll.

(No apologies to Richard O'Brien)

 

[Brother Brutha]

I hope that Clirus' toxic thinking, demonstrated here, never goes mainstream; that it never becomes part of the mental furniture of our culture, for it would certainly represent a moral regression.

It alread has, once: Germany, 1930's

 

[clirus]

"stealing from the most to give to the few" sounds like laissez-faire capitalism to me.

Both Capitalism and Socialism involve the most and the few, but in Capitalism, the most have a choice of participation and in Socialism, the most do not have a choice of participation.

That's why Socialists do not stay in power very long.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Both Capitalism and Socialism involve the most and the few, but in Capitalism, the most have a choice of participation and in Socialism, the most do not have a choice of participation.

That's why Socialists do not stay in power very long.

And yet, under Capitalism, private business decisions still produce a plethora of public consequences. I might not choose to participate in financial dealings with the major corporations, but none-the-less even while not participating directly I am still affected by their decisions through employment rates, inflation, value of the dollar, amount of pollution released, amount of atmospheric carbon released. Etc. Private business decisions still have public consequences regardless of whether I choose to participate in them or not. My non-participation doesn't make me immune from the effects of other people's private financial decisions.

 

[Lemsip]

Both Capitalism and Socialism involve the most and the few, but in Capitalism, the most have a choice of participation and in Socialism, the most do not have a choice of participation.

That's why Socialists do not stay in power very long.

And those who have no money or very little have no choice at all to participate in Capitalism. Have you not heard of private monopolies?

 

[Charlie V]

The choice between socialism and capitalism is a false dilemma.

One can build a society with elements of both, and one can build a society based on an entirely different paradigm.

The problem with (some forms of) socialism is that it provides no checks or balances against the tyranny of government or (in other forms) the tyranny of mob rule.

The problem with (some forms of) capitalism is that it provides no checks or balances against the tyranny of big business (in other forms of capitalism) the tyranny of the government under the control of the elite with unlimited military power.

Neither, left by itself, provides adequate incentives to produce and to make our societies, our environment and our world a better place, and neither does enough to reduce human suffering in the world.

A friend gave me an apt analogy.

There was a Warner Brothers cartoon some of us may remember.

In the cartoon, a room is rented and there's an annoying mouse. To get rid of the mouse, they use a cat, but the cat turns out to be worse than the mouse. To get rid of the cat, they use a dog, but the dog turns out worse than the cat. To get rid of the dog, they bring in a tiger, but that turns out to be worse. To get rid of the tiger, they bring in an elephant, which turns out to be worse, and to get rid of the elephant, they bring back the mouse.

What we have is a collection of really bad systems, each system, when given complete control, turns out to be tyrannical, and each makes our lives miserable. What is needed is the proper balance, and to keep all our mice, cats, dogs, tigers and elephants under control. The pro-capitalists and the pro-socialists are only holding up their cat, their dog, their tiger, their elephant as being the supreme best system for all of us, when all are tyrannical when not controlled, and all these systems have the power to make us miserable when not controlled.

Charlie

 

[Lemsip]

A mixed economy is the norm in Western Europe. I can't imagine an alternative except feudalism, libertarianism, dictatorship or anarchy (the left wing version of libertarianism).

 

[Charlie V]

I can't imagine an alternative except feudalism, libertarianism, dictatorship or anarchy (the left wing version of libertarianism).

Given infinite time, infinite information, and infinite resources, I could imagine infinity alternatives. And I can imagine other people imagining more than I, one mere individual, can imagine. I can imagine a great deal, even within my given limitations.

The one (human) force in the universe which has no limits, is the human imagination. The only thing that can't be imagined is the thing that we tell ourselves, "I can't imagine that."

Once upon a time, humans were hunters-gatherers who traded on a barter system. They couldn't imagine an alternative either. That is, until someone did.

Surely, there is someone living today, or someone not born yet, who will be remembered in future centuries as the great thinker from the early 21st century that turned everything on its head with his philosophy, wisdom and analysis.

Charlie

 

[Lemsip]

Food for thought there and my mind does boggle at the moment but I guess people from the long past and distant future wouldn't understand our systems either.

Clirus gets his or her views from the Old Testament which has largely been superseded by the New Testament and that in turn isn't exactly 100% relevant to the modern age. Try telling the Calvinists that and they would be up in arms and the extreme of Calvinism is dominionism.

 

[clirus]

Food for thought there and my mind does boggle at the moment but I guess people from the long past and distant future wouldn't understand our systems either.

Clirus gets his or her views from the Old Testament which has largely been superseded by the New Testament and that in turn isn't exactly 100% relevant to the modern age. Try telling the Calvinists that and they would be up in arms and the extreme of Calvinism is dominionism.

I believe both the Old Testament and the New Testament are needed to understand the Trinity of God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit.

I believe the Bible provides a complete concept of individual and national governance as follows.

I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - rebuke it but tolerate it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.

The first two are from the New Testament of the Bible and represent the Law of Love. The third is from the Old Testament of the Bible and represents the Law of Purity/Self Defense. The New Testament deals more with personal responsibility and the Old Testament deals more with the preservation of society. The Old Testament and the New Testament together present God's Law, a means of survival for a person, a nation and a world.

I believe the problems of the world involve Atheism and Liberal Christians failing to uphold the commandments/doctrines of the Bible (soft on sin).

I believe a Christian is a person that has accepted Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committed to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. I believe everyone else is an Atheist.

I believe in dominionism is the sense that Christians should be the salt and light of the world based on what is stated in the Bible.

I do not believe Christians should have the right to execute, but rather that the Church should rebuke sin/evil in obedience to God and the State should rebuke/execute evil/sin for health, safety and economic reasons.

The State will never rebuke/execute evil/sin if Atheists are in control of the government, thus Christians must control the government.

I do not believe the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, but rather the NT is a continuation of the OT where the NT deals with mostly with mans spiritual nature and the OT deals mostly with mans physical nature.

I do not believe Christians are bound by Mosaic Law, but that everything of Mosaic Law should be considered for Civil Law. I believe the purpose of government is to protect good people from evil people by the use of Civil Law to execute evil people internally and the use of the military to destroy evil people externally. I believe the only reason for prisons is to hold people that are waiting trial, and that a three strike then execution should be used for most crimes and immediate execution should be used from some crimes.

I believe the Atheistic Lifestyle leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty that many attempt to make tolerable/workable by Socialism.

I believe the Christian Lifestyle is the most environmentally friendly, socially responsible lifestyle that can exist on earth.

 

[Charlie V]

I believe the Atheistic Lifestyle leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty that many attempt to make tolerable/workable by Socialism.

I believe the Christian Lifestyle is the most environmentally friendly, socially responsible lifestyle that can exist on earth.

In my experience, atheists and Christians have no differences in their lifestyles, though individual people of all religious views (or none) may have different lifestyles.

Drinking heavily, for example, is an unhealthy lifestyle, and you'll find people of every faith (except, perhaps, Mormons and a few others) may be heavy drinkers, or not.

If an atheist does not drink to excess, that atheist is living just as healthy a lifestyle in regard to drinking as does a Mormon who does not drink.

Ones lifestyle has virtually nothing to do with ones concept of God.

Charlie

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe a Christian is a person that has accepted Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committed to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. I believe everyone else is an Atheist.

And from that point on you're entirely wrong. Your definition of 'Atheist', which is defined as one who does not believe in gods, would include people that do, in point of fact, believe in gods!

I do not believe Christians should have the right to execute, but rather that the Church should rebuke sin/evil in obedience to God and the State should rebuke/execute evil/sin for health, safety and economic reasons.

As I said before, the State has no compelling reason to rebuke or eliminate some of the things that the Church calls sin.

I do not believe Christians are bound by Mosaic Law, but that everything of Mosaic Law should be considered for Civil Law. I believe the purpose of government is to protect good people from evil people by the use of Civil Law to execute evil people internally and the use of the military to destroy evil people externally. I believe the only reason for prisons is to hold people that are waiting trial, and that a three strike then execution should be used for most crimes and immediate execution should be used from some crimes.

How self-rightheous you must feel to presume that you have within yourself the grand authority to illuminate the soul of a person to identify whether they are wholly good or evil. You must have some divine power Clirus that eludes the rest of us... or perhaps... delusions of grandeur would more aptly describe it.
The purpose of a Court of Law is not to separate the sheep from the goats on a purely 'good' or 'evil' basis; only Christ has the authority to do that. The Court of God shall decide what is good and evil. The Court of Law shall decide what is criminal.

I believe the Atheistic Lifestyle leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty that many attempt to make tolerable/workable by Socialism.

Since you are ignoring your own self-contradiction I shall remind you yet again:

You said:

(A) The purpose of the Book of Job was to show that poverty was not a proof of sin, yet you seem to be saying being rich is proof of sin​

Followed closely by:

(B) I believe the disease, death, destruction and poverty is the result of the sin and not because someone refuses to help.​

And more recently:

Atheists and the Atheistic Lifestyle produce disease, death, destruction and poverty.​

Sin leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty.​

If A, then not B. You claimed that "poverty was not a proof of sin" while many of your other claims assume that poverty is a proof of sin. You, sir or madam, are contradicting yourself! For example, in this thread, you unjustifiably interpreted lack of healthcare coverage to be indicative of sinfulness, and inferred that the 30 million uninsured Americans were sinful. You therefore assumed that their lack, their poverty, was proof of sin! Conversely, you inferred that the 170 million Americans with coverage were Bible-abiding persons. You therefore assumed that their possessions (health insurance) were indicative of their fidelity to Scripture! In this way you contradict your own claim that "poverty [is] not proof of sin" by conjecturing that a people's poverty (in this case, lack of healthcare coverage) is indicative of their sin! It's like saying, 'Being poor isn't proof that you're a criminal, but because you're poor I'm going to assume that you are a criminal.' Hypocrisy.

Could your credibility become anymore tarnished?

Well, given that you ignore this self-contradiction and continue to make the same claims, assuming that we are idiots and won't notice, yes... your credibility could indeed sink lower.

 

[Lemsip]

Clirus wrote:

I believe in dominionism is the sense that Christians should be the salt and light of the world based on what is stated in the Bible.

At least you admit it. There are so many misguided fundamentalist Christians who think the same as you who trying to kid us or simply unaware of where their belief set comes from. I use the term 'belief set' rather than 'beliefs' as they come in a set rather than individually in cases like this because of the black and white thinking.

I do not believe Christians are bound by Mosaic Law, but that everything of Mosaic Law should be considered for Civil Law. I believe the purpose of government is to protect good people from evil people by the use of Civil Law to execute evil people internally and the use of the military to destroy evil people externally. I believe the only reason for prisons is to hold people that are waiting trial, and that a three strike then execution should be used for most crimes and immediate execution should be used from some crimes.

Does this mean crimes such as pick pocketing, shop lifting, drug addiction (even cannabis), vandalism and prostitution?

I believe the Atheistic Lifestyle leads to disease, death, destruction and poverty that many attempt to make tolerable/workable by Socialism.

It's funny that as the atheists have the same view of conservative Christians but substitute the word 'socialism' for 'selfish capitalism'.

I believe the Christian Lifestyle is the most environmentally friendly, socially responsible lifestyle that can exist on earth.

Don't make me laugh. Conservative Christians tend to have larger families even accounting for those non Christians who divorce and remarry and have serial families. They believe God wants them rich which means they have more money to spend on large houses and gas guzzling cars. I wouldn't say the same for liberal Christians (which you call dead Christians) and some are very much concerned about their stewardship of the planet and third world issues.

 

[marshlewis]

as an athiest Im amused that clirus is repeatedly charged by other christians with warping scripture to suit his/her own predjudices.
I think the bases for criticising clirus should start with common sense. The fact that clirus does not grasp the meaning of the the words that are central to his/her argument e.g. socialism, invalidates that argument far more effectively than a different take on a self contradicting holy book.

 

[Lemsip]

as an athiest Im amused that clirus is repeatedly charged by other christians with warping scripture to suit his/her own predjudices.
I think the bases for criticising clirus should start with common sense. The fact that clirus does not grasp the meaning of the the words that are central to his/her argument e.g. socialism, invalidates that argument far more effectively than a different take on a self contradicting holy book.

He/she doesn't understand liberalism, fairness and democracy either.

When it comes to the Bible most Christians don't take the Mosaic Law as relevant as it is superseded by the Gospels and Jesus asking us to take care of our neighbours and he who is without sin casting the first stone. All have sinned so they cannot judge.

 

[marshlewis]

He/she doesn't understand liberalism, fairness and democracy either.

When it comes to the Bible most Christians don't take the Mosaic Law as relevant as it is superseded by the Gospels and Jesus asking us to take care of our neighbours and he who is without sin casting the first stone. All have sinned so they cannot judge.

Yes but the point is that putting new testament law ahead of old testament law (aside from the massive contradiction of the nature of god) is just a matter of interpretation. So if you try and argue from a biblical position with somebody who is basically a ridiculous cartoonlike moral vacuume you atribute the exact same level of credability to their arguments as to yours.