Democracy and Christianity

[Caid Ivik]

Perhaps it was imminent to free the land for Israeli, let they can grow to a large nation, not only a small tribe as they were when they left Egypt. I wouldn't say it was a punishment. It was a war.

[Leto le Juste]

Israeli is, according to judaism, the Chosen folk by God. So God chose them in order to say who He is. So Israeli had to be save by God unlike the rest of humankind. So, perhaps have the authors of Old Testament that God punished human race (except the Chosen Israeli and his representant) (I think about Noe during the Flood).

[Caid Ivik]

Noe was long before Israel. He was even before Abraham.

[TMA_1]

you have to understand filecore that God was the literal king of the jews at the time, and that they had to destroy the cities because not only were they evil, but they were a destructive force in many ways. Evil needs to be cut out, and western society has a problem with this viewpoint. It is just something we disagree on. It was a different time period, something hard for us to understand. The standards for God dont change though, so I couldnt change my thoughts and standards.

[Caid Ivik]

Or we can see it from simple mystical view. Baal and Kamos have rebelled against God, so he send a nation to erase their worshippers and thus limit their influence...

[Acriku]

you have to understand filecore that God was the literal king of the jews at the time, and that they had to destroy the cities because not only were they evil, but they were a destructive force in many ways. Evil needs to be cut out, and western society has a problem with this viewpoint. It is just something we disagree on. It was a different time period, something hard for us to understand. The standards for God dont change though, so I couldnt change my thoughts and standards.

I don't see how being in a different time period alleviates the moral injustices of mass genocide by the very hand of God.

[TMA_1]

If I remember right, you were the one that said morals are subjective and change in difference from time periods and cultures.

hmmm, double standard? ;) hehe

[Acriku]

They are subjective. But my own morals that I choose to have cause me to classify mass genocide as a moral injustice. Nice redirect, though.

[TMA_1]

those are your morals, dont think they are the correct ones. genocide is evil when it is an injustice, but if an entire population is as evil as humanly possible, I dont think it is wrong.

[Caid Ivik]

How dare you generalize and judge us like this! Remember: even God said, that if Abraham would find a sole righteous in Sodoma, he will spare them all...

[TMA_1]

how many times do I have to say this is MY OPINION!!! lol

I am generalizing because this is how I view things. God did spare many cannanites if you actually remember. Like the prostitute that asked the spies to not destroy her and her family. She later was apart of the line of christ. the rest though if you remember were killed utterly, including women, children, and animals.

I did not say this, the bible says this. You can disagree but I generally align my moral standards with teh bible's. So if God says something is evil and he will destroy it, then I believe it is for a good reason.

blind faith? yes, very much so. I have never contridicted this though.

God does save many cannanites, but those that did not repent were killed.

This is a differing of opinion, but my ideals are NOt your ideals caid. so dont think I am speaking for you.

I may sound cold, but I cant rewrite biblical history.lol dont yell at me for it, this is my interpritation of what the bible itself says. So please calm down caid.

[Caid Ivik]

You take everything so seriously, TMA...  ;D

[TMA_1]

lol you weirdo. ;) seriously though I just take the bible for what it is, the literal truth. THis is my opinion, many might look down on me because of it, but it is how I see things.

[Acriku]

those are your morals, dont think they are the correct ones. genocide is evil when it is an injustice, but if an entire population is as evil as humanly possible, I dont think it is wrong.

Exactly why I said: It brings my heart to joy when I see people advocate mass genocide.

[TMA_1]

good. ;) seriously though I think it is a double standard when you say things like the subjectivity of morals, then when you find something immoral you say something against it. The hwole point is that your morality is no better than any others, so why express it? lol you usually dont make such a double standard, so this is a rarity.

[Acriku]

There is absolutely no double standard here. Morals are relative, there is no true universal morality that exists, it is all derived from our reasoning and our way of being taught. Some people think anything that harms a human is bad. Others take pleasure in harming humans. As I said, there is no true universal morality. Having iterated this, I myself have reasoned out a morality that suits my needs and wants. I find killing the entire population of a planet save a family is injust. You don't? That's fine. I am imposing my morality on yours to show how much I am against such an advocation of genocide. It is a demonstration of my own morality, and how I judge other acts with my morality. Sure, it was with a taste of sarcasm, but that's how I like to deliver many things.

Now can we go back ontopic, or should we continue in another thread?

[Caid Ivik]

Well, then you Acriku don't have only two ways of morale, but uncountably more? Interesting.

However, if we want to make some look at things, we should have one morale standard at least as a model. Kant calls this Gemeinschaftsmaxime, and his main gesetz is that our own behavior maxime should be same as this. But that's just ubrigens, by the way. Do you think that democracy provides good form of this Gemeinschaftsmaxime?

[Acriku]

I'll be able to answer your question if you can explain the German terms for me.

[Leto le Juste]

I agrre with you Caid ( for sure, Kant is one of my model ;) )

[Caid Ivik]

To use a small paraphrasis, if there would be no Kant, we would have to imagine one  ;D

[Edric O]

Let's see... me and Caid have some unfinished business...

Divine rights as I counted them are as well for politics as for any other part of life. Of course, it isn't anything new, even when Hebrews chosen for kingdom instead of theocracy in biblical times it was their freedom of choice, their responsibility. These things have God's endorsement, as some stolze kings thought.

You might want to clarify that statement. What exactly are "these things" which have God's endorsement? Freedom of choice certainly does have God's endorsement. But no system of government has any kind of divine nature or divine support. Governments are human inventions, established by the people and for the people (or at least that's the way they should be).

Brick wall is composed of bricks, but the wall itself you can sell much better than that couple of bricks and malta. Communism is a system, which takes people as bricks inside a wall. Give them maximum care, paint them with one color and it should be good. Perfect system, really...

Talk about a stupid way of trying to twist a metaphor... ::)

I was comparing society (ANY kind of society, not just a communist one) to a brick wall in which the bricks symbolize the individuals, in order to make you see the way in which society and the individual are dependent on each other (actually, the important part is the way in which society is dependent on its individual members). My point was that any claim about "putting society before the individual" is nonsense, because society is merely a sum of individuals. How can you have "the good of society" without the good of the individual? How can you have a strong wall when every brick is shattered? Without the individual, you can't have society.

Communism strives for the "good of society" in the sense that it strives for the maximum good for the maximum number of individuals.

Let is socialization process democratic or not, it is centrally controlled.

Excuse me, but last time I checked there was a difference between "central control" by a ruthless dictator and "central control" in a democratic system...

The question is Who has the power. Democracy means that the people themselves have the power. The majority rules, and the minority has rights that protect it from abuse. Under these conditions, the socialization of the means of production is fair and just.

Labor isn't property, it's an act. Actor can't "own" his performance or you can't "own" your walk.

I wasn't talking about the act of labour itself, I was talking about the PRODUCT of that labour.

Let's say you make a shoe. Are you saying that you don't have any rights to that shoe, because your labour doesn't matter?

Working means putting time and effort into something. If you're saying that all that time and effort means nothing, then you are plain delusional - and you are advocating slave labour.

That's a nonsense. What one company produces is a property of unpersonal institute, which gives wages depending on success of product.

"The company" doesn't produce anything. The workers of the company produce everything. And an impersonal institute can't own anything. When you say "property of the company", what you actually mean is "property of the people who own the company". So, in conclusion, everything that the workers produce becomes the property of the small group of people who own the company. This is the inherent injustice of capitalism.

Oh, and capitalist wages have nothing to do with the success of the product. A worker is paid the bare minimum that his boss can get away with (in practice, this means the minimum sum of money necessary to keep him from leaving and getting a job somewhere else).

Communism is in this illogical, as it gives same wages, no matter how is product selling.

Communism does not give "wages". A wage is a capitalist concept, and it involves the existence of an authoritarian institution such as a company - something that doesn't exist in communism.

Also, there is no buying or selling in communism. It's a system of communal property, remember?

Things you call "lie" I don't have to comment more. Lack of arguments? ::) I think I gave you sufficent description higher.

Actually, it was your lack of arguments that prompted me to say that in the first place. When you make a statement, back it up with some arguments if you expect me to take it seriously.

[Edric O]

Now, Acriku, I have a question for you:

If you say that morals are relative, then how can you judge God from a moral high ground? After all, if morals are relative, then your morals aren't any better or worse than anybody else's. They certainly have no authority over God.

[Acriku]

Well, if I didn't think that mine was better than everyone else's (on mutually exclusive grounds only) then how good would I consider my morality? Not very, indeed. Note: this is precisely why I think that there is no absolute morality. That answers your question, I hope. :)

Also, something that I have been thinking: if there truly is an absolute morality, does it exist physically? Of course not. How can a concept exist physically? So, how can it be absolute? Just something I'm pondering.

[Caid Ivik]

Where has my post vanished?

[TMA_1]

that post didnt make much sense acriku, I dont think you can answer edric's question, which is right on target.