Bible verses

[Acriku]

Might I remind you that if Evolution is followed and followed Rightly. You can have Billions killed? Look at Hitler. He killed Millions killed under Evolution. And he had them killed rightly. The evolutionest has to discrimenate. And also discrimenate agienst Blacks.

I'm sorry for being so blunt, but you just typed in the most ignorant and frankly idiotic post I've seen in years. I hope there are sarcastic undertones that I don't detect in your post, or god help us all.

Secondly I also remind you that even if Christians din't strive for it, it wouldn't invalidate the arguement of Christanty any. I admit the Church is a sorry excuse for being Christian. But they follow the Bible wrongly. Hitler followed evolution rightly.

I don't know why you keep saying Hitler followed evolution rightly, nor can I begin to understand what that means, but if the Bible says to do something, it's probably right to follow it.

And thirdly diffrant denominations Might not be Christian. A Christian is a saved person. Since salvation is relative to the Denomination. They might not be Chirstian. In other words, there are lots of Christianties.

You can follow the True Scotsman fallacy all the way town buddy, but that doesn't take away the fact that there are hundreds of Christian denominations, with major ones such as Lutherans, Mormons, Baptists, Protestants, and Catholics. And they fight. Just look at northern Ireland.

Wolfwiz, you're perfectly correct that the middle class takes up the majority of the population. I think it goes middle, poverty, lower, high. Not sure about the exact order.

[Wolf]

Sneezer, you're next post will break 1000... might it be nice to explain exactly what you mean by "he had them killed rightly"?

Also, I'm not sure about the exact numbers, but I'm fairly certain that the middle class is the majority, but also because the middle class has the largest margins of defintion when compared to the rich and the poor. However, to put it in relative terms, there are a lot more poor than rich, and even the lower echelon of the "middle class" when compared to the "upper class" appears to be quite poor. I think Dan mean to say that "the poorer people are in the majority", which would be correct. As Edric pointed out in one of the many threads about communism, socialism & capitalism, wealth is relative.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Socialism doesn't violate freedom, it protects freedom.

It doesnt protect Bill Gate's freedom to possess billions of dollars and be the richest man in the world for the past 10 years.

Although i agree with the socialists that no man should be that insanely wealthy.... however taking away money from him would be some sort of violation to him, his property , and his freedom.

Socialism takes away the freedom of being able to choose whether to give money to charities or not.... because charities do not exist in a socialist state due to all the wealth being re-distributed and poor destitute people no longer existing....

However we are lucky that in Bill Gate's freedom he chooses to give much of that money to charities without being forced to do so.

Now personally i dont mind that freedom being taken away because people starving to death shouldnt depend on our *free* whims of whether we will donate to charity or not.  However try to get everyone else in the world to agree with that.... good luck.

Which is why christians have such a hard time setting up the proposed socialist state proposed by the Bible.

[Edric O]

For God's sake, stop confusing socialism with communism!

You've been talking about communism and calling it "socialism" since this topic began! Or at least you've done so in your comments about it "not working" - since it is possible to argue that communism "can't work" (although such arguments would be wrong, but that's another matter), but it is utterly ridiculous to argue that socialism "can't work". Socialism is simple and straightforward, and we could implement it tomorrow if we had the power to do so. Socialism doesn't require any change in the way society is organized or in the way people relate to each other. See this topic for an explanation of what socialism is and how it works.

As for communism, that doesn't necessarely require people to be kind and generous either. As I explained in yet another topic, it would be perfectly possible to have a communist society made up entirely of selfish bastards - so long as they are rational selfish bastards with some knowledge of statistics.

Statistically speaking, communism gives you the best odds at gaining any personal benefit. Or, in other words, if your personal benefits (I won't use the word "wealth" because it's technically incorrect) in communism are X, then in any non-communist system you are most likely to gain less than X.

In capitalism, for example, only the top 10% of people are better off than they would be in communism, while the bottom 90% of people are worse off than they would be in communism (these are real numbers: if all wealth was distributed evenly, the top 10% richest people would be the only ones losing anything - they really are THAT rich). So for any given person, the odds of doing better in communism than in capitalism are 9 in 10.

Given those odds, even the most selfish man should choose communism.

Communism is dependent on people knowing that they have more to gain by putting all property in common and co-operating than by not doing so.

[Edric O]

Now, I'm rather short on time at the moment, so I'll limit myself to answering Gunwounds' latest post and posting a number of Bible verses. I'll have time to write more later tonight.

It doesnt protect Bill Gate's freedom to possess billions of dollars and be the richest man in the world for the past 10 years.

That's not freedom. Just like the "freedom to hold slaves" is not freedom.

By your definition, "absolute freedom" would mean a complete lack of laws and rules of any sort. But how "free" do you think you'd be if everyone else would be free to kill you at any time?

Freedom means the ability to do whatever you wish as long as you do not cause harm to others.

Bill Gates did not earn his money through his own work. He acquired it through exploitation (and the irrefutable proof of the existence of capitalist exploitation is that Bill Gates would have had to work as hard as 50 million ordinary Americans in order to earn his wealth - an obvious impossibility). So Bill Gates's "freedom" to be filthy rich causes direct harm to those who rightfully earned the money that he acquired by exploitation.

Laws against exploitation protect freedom just like laws against murder protect freedom.

Although i agree with the socialists that no man should be that insanely wealthy.... however taking away money from him would be some sort of violation to him, his property , and his freedom.

When you free slaves, is that a violation of the slave owner's "freedom"? No. There is no such thing as the "freedom to harm others", so there is no such thing as the "freedom to hold slaves".

Similarly, taking away money from an insanely wealthy man is not a violation of freedom, because there is no such thing as the "freedom" to get insanely rich by exploiting (and therefore harming) others.

Socialism takes away the freedom of being able to choose whether to give money to charities or not.... because charities do not exist in a socialist state due to all the wealth being re-distributed and poor destitute people no longer existing....

However we are lucky that in Bill Gate's freedom he chooses to give much of that money to charities without being forced to do so.

Fallacy. This is like saying:

a) choosing to free slaves is good

b) you cannot choose to free slaves unless you have slaves

therefore c) slavery is good

It's a fallacy because the evil done by having slaves in the first place is greater than the good done by freeing them. Similarly, the evil done by having an unjust system is greater than the good done by people who donate to charity in order to make the system a little more just.

In other words, donating to charity is good, but it's even better if nobody NEEDS charity in the first place.

[Edric O]

And here are a few more interesting Bible verses:

"And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?"

And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Then he said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;

HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?"

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.

And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

- Matthew 19:16-24 (also described in Mark 10:17-25 and Luke 18:18-25)

-----------------------------------

"And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.

And He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you are making it a robbers' den!"

And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them."

- Matthew 21:12-14 (also described in Mark 11:15 and John 2:14-16)

-----------------------------------

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need."

- Acts 2:44-45

"...to each, according to his need..."  Now where have I heard that before?

[Acriku]

Hmm.. Edric has the Bible to support his economic and governmental views. That kind of puts a downer on the others, eh?

[GUNWOUNDS]

i understand the "greater good" that communism/socialism can bring about ... however comparing money to slaves

[TMA_1]

The bible doesnt support any form of government guys! good gravy.lol

THe church (not the institutionalized entity, but the people that form the "body of christ") had to support themselves. They were disliked and often shunned by people in their neighborhoods. Also when there was conversion usually it was a large group of people and they became close to eachother. They stuck close so that they could support one another as a community. It had nothing to do with any sort of institutionalized communism, in the idea that it was some sort of government. Remember that the church always saw itself as subserviant to governments that they dwelt under. It was strictly communal, which is obviously communism, but not in the way people are explaining it. The Bible strictly states that conversion is through the heart, and that we should seperate the faith of christ from government.

The reason why riches are so feared and bad in the new testament is because along with riches comes worldliness. It is almost impossible for somebody to not have earned their money by some act of evil and worldliness. And when you do have all that money, you have power. Power is dangerous because it is a direct path to act and react in the world system with greater sway, which creates independance from God because of worldliness.

See, I have only heard of one or two multi-millionares who actually spent their money in godliness. If somebody did spend their money in divine good, they would live in modest houses, with relatively little comforts, while the vast majority of that money would go to the support of good churches and the community of believers in need.

A lot of rich "christians" these days give "Tithes", thinking foolishly that somehow we are under the laws of the old testament. Christians arent! and those tithes are an excuse to not give the full amount of money that they should give. The church (unlike israel, which needed to) doesnt give taxes, but instead we need to give all in order to recieve all from Christ Jesus. Rich christians should give all they have extra to what the lord desires, and when I mean extra, I mean everything that isnt of necessity, or of a few things that are fun. I mean we should have some fun, but I am not talking fun, going all around the world in yachts spending millions in casinos fun.lol I am talking about the simple pleasures that are actually needed for a full life. Basically all people should live moderately, and there are literally only a handful of rich christians who do this. Most rich christians just make me sad. That is why I figure that I am kinda blessed to be poor, because if I did have a lot of money I dont think I could pass the test of wealth.

[GUNWOUNDS]

The bible doesnt support any form of government guys! good gravy.lol

THe church (not the institutionalized entity, but the people that form the "body of christ") had to support themselves. They were disliked and often shunned by people in their neighborhoods. Also when there was conversion usually it was a large group of people and they became close to eachother. They stuck close so that they could support one another as a community. It had nothing to do with any sort of institutionalized communism, in the idea that it was some sort of government. Remember that the church always saw itself as subserviant to governments that they dwelt under. It was strictly communal, which is obviously communism, but not in the way people are explaining it. The Bible strictly states that conversion is through the heart, and that we should seperate the faith of christ from government.

The reason why riches are so feared and bad in the new testament is because along with riches comes worldliness. It is almost impossible for somebody to not have earned their money by some act of evil and worldliness. And when you do have all that money, you have power. Power is dangerous because it is a direct path to act and react in the world system with greater sway, which creates independance from God because of worldliness.

See, I have only heard of one or two multi-millionares who actually spent their money in godliness. If somebody did spend their money in divine good, they would live in modest houses, with relatively little comforts, while the vast majority of that money would go to the support of good churches and the community of believers in need.

A lot of rich "christians" these days give "Tithes", thinking foolishly that somehow we are under the laws of the old testament. Christians arent! and those tithes are an excuse to not give the full amount of money that they should give. The church (unlike israel, which needed to) doesnt give taxes, but instead we need to give all in order to recieve all from Christ Jesus. Rich christians should give all they have extra to what the lord desires, and when I mean extra, I mean everything that isnt of necessity, or of a few things that are fun. I mean we should have some fun, but I am not talking fun, going all around the world in yachts spending millions in casinos fun.lol I am talking about the simple pleasures that are actually needed for a full life. Basically all people should live moderately, and there are literally only a handful of rich christians who do this. Most rich christians just make me sad. That is why I figure that I am kinda blessed to be poor, because if I did have a lot of money I dont think I could pass the test of wealth.

this makes alot of sense.

but where do you draw the line?

[Caid Ivik]

No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you. But I have understanding as well as you; I am not inferior to you: yea, who knoweth not such things as these? I am as one mocked of his neighbour, who calleth upon God, and he answereth him: the just upright man is laughed to scorn. He that is ready to slip with his feet is as a lamp despised in the thought of him that is at ease. The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure; into whose hand God bringeth abundantly.

- J 12,1-6

[TagDaze]

Try this: It's not bad to be rich, on the contrary, it can be quite handy. But the issue is, what if it takes up your time? The point is that some people let money come on the 1st place, and put God on the 2nd.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Try this: It's not bad to be rich, on the contrary, it can be quite handy. But the issue is, what if it takes up your time? The point is that some people let money come on the 1st place, and put God on the 2nd.

Thats a clearer way to look at it .

[Caid Ivik]

Amass wealth, "exploit", go for any chance, don't wait for the others...but do it ad maiorem Deus gloriam!

[TagDaze]

Let me try and translate that:

"Rip people off in the name of God?"

[Caid Ivik]

Do you jehovists always have to "translate" things?

[GUNWOUNDS]

its getting hot in here

[TagDaze]

My flame-sense is tingling.

[Wolf]

Nah, it's natural that individuals will abuse religion; just as they abuse government, economics, and pretty much everything else. This does not excuse them, but it proves that corruption in the name of a belief does not necessitate corruption as being part of that belief.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Wolfwiz discuss your feelings on what Tagdaze and I were discussing before Caid arrived.

[Wolf]

In the movie Chariots of Fire it was God first, King second. I imagine that the same would hold true for wealth, God first, wealth second.

[Edric O]

Hmm.. Edric has the Bible to support his economic and governmental views. That kind of puts a downer on the others, eh?

I do *NOT* use the Bible in political arguments. Although it's pretty clear that Jesus's teachings tell us to live in a communist society, not everyone is a Christian (and of those who are Christians, most seem to care more about what Pat Robertson says than about what Jesus says).

My arguments for socialism and communism are secular, not religious. In politics, I only use the Bible to shatter the idiocy of the "Christian" Right. Being a Christian and supporting capitalism just doesn't make sense.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Being a Christian and supporting capitalism just doesn't make sense.

Thats way too extreme and harsh....not everyone has a degree in economics

[Edric O]

I was talking about the Christians who actively support capitalism, not about those who don't care either way.

[Caid Ivik]

You talk like "capitalism" was some kind of institution or at least an ideology. To be economically active doesn't counter any law of God, what you were trying to show by misinterprating Bible. I don't see any other form of "active support for capitalism" than market itself. At least don't try to look hypocritical, when your first sentence is going against the last...