 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Asher/One Love: The Concept of Ownership, Round 3 | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 11/19/2010 12:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | Daniel: Once you get into universals, you enter the realm of coercion.
Jeff: Is the law of non-contradiction a universal, per your definition?
Daniel: No. I'm talking about moral universals. I'm talking about "everyone has to adhere to this." As to the law of non-contradiction, I'm not so sure it's as simple as Aristotle thought. Epistemologically speaking we need ~A to know what A is, and vice-versa. And most epistemological that are completely "rational" i.e. logical positivism being with their negation. For example, positivism states that the only true things are either quantifiable or true by definition. However, the statement "the only true things are quantifiable or true by definition" is neither quantifiable or true by definition. In this instance a rational epistemology is grounded on its negation. It's not that I'm falling into epistemological skepticism, I'm simply aware that Reason, as systematized by humanity, isn't the firm foundation the Enlightenment thought it was. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 11/19/2010 1:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: Daniel, it seems to me that you are doing just what Zach will always do. Namely, resort to not only arguing that scripture doesn't have to provide us any plausible beliefs, but even arguing that there are no HUMAN intuitions which could serve as grouds for determining DEGREES of plausibility
Daniel: You're taking it too far. I'm saying there's no hope in human institutions. Policy changes rarely, if ever, accomplish anything worth while. For example, whats the point in fighting for a more free economy in America? Well, presumably so that we get wealthier and more materially prosperous. Which will allow for us to make better bombs to kill people who think that we wrong them (and we usually HAVE wronged them). I know a lot of theorists who think that government regulation of the market has simply prolonged the life of capitalism because it makes life bearable for the worker. Because, the assumption goes, unregulated capitalism is simply unbearable for the worker. Other theorists think that once the market is free from regulation then economic tranquility will follow. And I'd say, do we really, REALLY, think that economic tranquility will follow from a government policy of deregulation? Is government policy, in the form of less government policy that leads to economic tranquility, going to help us enter into right-relating to God and others? When, in history, has economic tranquility turned into a genuine spiritual?
And if we're going to say that certain economic structures are more just then others, then I will argue that capitalism is extremely unjust and is most certainly not worth fighting for.
And when did I say that scripture doesn't provide us with any plausible beliefs? I'm pretty sure scripture gives us some very concrete beliefs about politics. Those politics simply look nothing like the way the world does politics. Because our politics looks like dying on a cross, not fighting for more economic conservatism in order to lower the national debt (assuming that economic conservatism would actually do that, since most politicians who are "economically conservitive" end up spending just as much, if not more, then their liberal counterparts) so that we can become an overbearing economic imperial power once again.
Jeff: I just see nothing in scripture that impies or indicates that it has the God-given right to redistribute wealth.
Daniel: Taxes are a form of wealth collection. Once those taxes are collected they belong to the government because they have the power to decide what to do with the money (perhaps unjustly as you suggest, but the system has existed for thousands of years nonetheless.). What did Jesus say about paying taxes? Our money has the face of Caesar all over it in the from of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc. If the government decides to redistribute that money to those in need, isn't that an example of a human institution operating DEGREE'S more acceptable then a government that would take taxes and use those taxes to benefit the wealthy?
Was Jesus wrong about paying taxes? (and that question seems to have been ignored the few times I've asked it)Post Edited (Daniel M) : 11/19/2010 12:13:27 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/19/2010 6:51 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Daniel: And if we're going to say that certain economic structures are more just then others, then I will argue that capitalism is extremely unjust and is most certainly not worth fighting for.
Jeff: The problem, here, is that capitalism isn't an economic structure. Capitalism is an economic strategy. It's about investing for long range productivity at the expense of short range productivity. All people do it to the extent that is practical for them. So capitalism, per se, apart from specific contextual discussions, has nothing to do with justice or injustice.
Daniel: I'm saying there's no hope in human institutions.
Jeff: I would agree that there's not much hope for government. But it's because, as Brandon has said, the government is a reflection of the governed. So what we're really saying is: Few enter the strait way (and find there joy in that); many enter the broad way (and find their gratification in that).
But I still think that criticizing the government in terms of arguments that are plausible, per most people's avowed metaphysics, has the positive effect of slowing down government's headlong rush over the cliff, whether or not there's any hope for reforming government.
Daniel: Taxes are a form of wealth collection. Once those taxes are collected they belong to the government because they have the power to decide what to do with the money (perhaps unjustly as you suggest, but the system has existed for thousands of years nonetheless.). What did Jesus say about paying taxes? Our money has the face of Caesar all over it in the from of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc.
Jeff: But I'm defending Paul's claim (which I think is nothing more than an expansion of Jesus's point) that taxes truly are OWED to the government. Why? Because the government really IS a divinely-authorized minister unto good, even when it does a relatively bad job of fulfilling its God-given ministry. But it's because that ministry is divinely-authorized that we owe them the taxes. Because all humans owe God compliance with His objectives to the extent that they can comply. That's what Paul and Jesus are saying, IMO. I can't make any sense of any other interpretation of Rom. 14 I've ever heard. This does not mean, however, that submission to government is always obligatory. But neither is submission to parents. There are virtually always exceptions.
Daniel: If the government decides to redistribute that money to those in need, isn't that an example of a human institution operating DEGREE'S more acceptable then a government that would take taxes and use those taxes to benefit the wealthy?
Jeff: The government does both. The government gives as little to the poor as it takes to keep them from revolting or demonstrating in the streets. But it gives lots of money and economic favors to the rich.
You seem to be assuming the rich are opposed to helping the poor enough to keep them from revolting or demonstrating. They aren't. They just aren't sure where that line actually is. Once we have a people that is slavish enough to tolerate "communist" despotism, the people will not dare demonstrate, because they will be shot down like rats in the streets. Then the rich (along with the government) will exploit them even more. But for now, it's in the interest of the rich to get their wealth in the mode they are doing it. The rich and the government are ALWAYS in cahoots.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/19/2010 5:55:07 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/19/2010 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: You're taking it too far. I'm saying there's no hope in human institutions.
When you guys get into the details of competing economic philosophies I watch from the sidelines, but this, Daniel, is a statement I can agree with. I don’t think any one approach to secular government or any one economic philosophy known to us will endure the eschaton. All are fallen. I don’t think we’ll be capitalists in heaven, in spite of the fact that capitalism entails free self-determination (which determination shall endure into the eschaton). I have little to no hope in any form of human government. What hope I do have only pertains to the statistical advantages (pointed out by Jeff) that civil government per se has over preventing crime and other evils.
But I do think there are degrees of approximated beauty inherent to these fallen governments. Democracy is, I think, more beautiful than Communism, as ugly as democracy is. Or I should say it’s 'less ugly' than Communism. To that extend I prefer to live in a democracy. I think the freedoms of speech and religion are better than their oppression. I think government tends to botch things up when it appropriates to itself the tasks of education, wealth redistribution, etc. I don’t claim any ultimate sort of advantage of one over the other. I just think that in spite of all its evils, democracy (and yes, capitalism to the same extent) is overall a bit less egregious system than socialism or communism. But all are, per se, bound for the trash heap, and preferring any one of them is an act of complicity in their respective evils. But prefer we must so long as we are on this side of perfection.
Doesn’t that relativize you guys’ differences significantly?
The reason I keep referring to the eschaton is because I think it's the measure by which we can adjudicate some of these questions. Is capitalism of God? Is heaven a huge free-market society based on personal ownership of property? How should believers conceive of their relationship to the State? To property ownership? Is there a purely Kingdom-based answer to these questions that does not commit the believer to some level of complicity in the evil of the world's fallen structures? I think not. But when we consder the eschaton I think we're invited to imagine a form of relating that is utterly different from anything the world has known. It's no more capitalism perfected than it is communism perfected...unless of couse (one could say) it's the best aspirations of BOTH (and of all aspirations inherent in the human heart) perfected.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA Post Edited (Tom) : 11/19/2010 6:49:29 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 11/19/2010 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: The problem, here, is that capitalism isn't an economic structure. Capitalism is an economic strategy. It's about investing for long range productivity at the expense of short range productivity. All people do it to the extent that is practical for them. So capitalism, per se, apart from specific contextual discussions, has nothing to do with justice or injustice.
Daniel: We might have a problem here... Capitalism is not an economic structure? I think Eugene McCarraher does an excellent job of discussing capitalism and the problems inherit within it:
Eugene McCarraher said...
As for abortion, I think we have to stop seeing it as the primary culprit in a culture of death. Abortion becomes conceivable as a moral practice once we take individual autonomy as the beau ideal of the self; but to recognize that is, if we’re logical, to indict not only abortion but also our cherished idyll of choice or freedom. But that, then, is to indict capitalism, which employs a similar language of sovereignty both to legitimate itself and to obscure the remarkable lack of creative freedom at work. I know that I’ll catch a lot of hell for saying this, but I think that a lot of opposition to abortion is sheer moral sentimentality which turns the fetus into a fetish. (You’ll notice that I think fetishism of some sort or other is a pretty salient feature of the contemporary American moral imagination.) Many of the same people who oppose abortion are champions of laissez-faire capitalism, and they either don’t see or don’t care to see the linguistic and cultural affinities between themselves and the pro-choice advocates they fight. They’ll retort that capitalism doesn’t kill anyone in its normal operations, but first, that’s just not true—capitalism has never been instituted or maintained anywhere, not even in the North Atlantic, without considerable coercion and violence—and second, it doesn’t matter, because the exercise of market autonomy has devastating effects on individuals and communities regardless of whether or not they wind up dead. (“Yeah, the company cut your medical benefits or cut your job or left your town a mess, but hey, you’re still alive!”) When I say this, a lot of people retort that I’m changing the subject. In one way, yes, I am, but for a reason—because I want them to see that it is the same subject in a different guise. Talking about abortion is a way of not talking about the autonomous individual, the latest ideological guise of libido dominandi, discussion of which would topple quite a few idols and not just reproductive choice.
It might bear in mind that McCarraher is a professional historian. History is never objective, certainly there is always a narrative overlaid on the facts. However, I don't think McCarraher's comments surrounding the establishment of capitalism can be shrugged off without considerable historical legwork. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 11/19/2010 12:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Democracy is, I think, more beautiful than Communism, as ugly as democracy is.
Daniel: Granted, it has never historically developed in this manner, but Democracy is not the opposite of Communism. Indeed, at least for Marx, democracy is necessary for Communism. Communism and Capitalism are competing economic structures. America could vote itself to a communist economic policy and still exist as a democracy. It wouldn't be a "western" democracy anymore, but it would still be a democracy. But there is no hope in communism. There is only hope in Christ.
Concerning the possible justice in capitalism, I think this quote from Hubert McCabe makes the point that justice (as reconciliation) is simply incompatible with captialism:
“What is wrong with capitalism is simply that it is based on human antagonism, and it is precisely here that it comes in conflict with Christianity. Capitalism is a state of war, but not just a state of war between equivalent forces; it involves a war between those who believe in and prosecute war as a way of life, as an economy, and those who do not. … Christianity is deeply subversive of capitalism precisely because it announces the improbably possibility that men might life together without war; neither by domination nor by antagonism but by unity in love. It announces this, of course, primarily as a future and nearly miraculous possibility and certainly not as an established fact; Christians are not under the illusion that mankind is sinless or that sin is easily overcome, but they believe that it will be overcome. It was for this reason that Jesus was executed – as a political threat. Not because he was a political activist; he was not. … But he was nonetheless executed as a political threat because the gospel he preached — that the Father loves us and therefore, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, we are able to love one another and stake the meaning of our lives on this — cut to the root of the antagonistic society in which he still lives.”
–Herbert McCabePost Edited (Daniel M) : 11/19/2010 11:24:05 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/19/2010 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | Personally, I like this idea in a general sense...
The phrase summarizes the principles that...every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs.
In my mind, this is just how the different organs of the body relate to the body as a whole, right? Just like the body analogy from Paul. But the ONLY WAY that I see this would be able to work would be if the "polis" were people who had a truly hearts from from possessiveness and selfishness. What could make a person want to dedicate the best of themselves to others...while only desiring to receive what they require to continue such dedication...but LOVE itself?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/19/2010 11:43:23 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/19/2010 8:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Herbert McCabe - What is wrong with capitalism is simply that it is based on human antagonism, and it is precisely here that it comes in conflict with Christianity. Capitalism is a state of war, but not just a state of war between equivalent forces; it involves a war between those who believe in and prosecute war as a way of life, as an economy, and those who do not. … Christianity is deeply subversive of capitalism precisely because it announces the improbably possibility that men might life together without war; neither by domination nor by antagonism but by unity in love.
----------
Totally delusional.
-------------
Mises quotes
The characteristic mark of economic history under capitalism is unceasing economic progress, a steady increase in the quantity of capital goods available, and a continuous trend toward an improvement in the general standard of living.
The characteristic feature of capitalism that distinguishes it from pre-capitalist methods of production was its new principle of marketing. Capitalism is not simply mass production, but mass production to satisfy the needs of the masses.
Capitalism is essentially a system of mass production for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses. It pours a horn of plenty upon the common man. It has raised the average standard of living to a height never dreamed of in earlier ages. It has made accessible to millions of people enjoyments which a few generations ago were only within the reach of a small elite.
Many pioneers of these industrial changes, it is true, became rich. But they acquired their wealth by supplying the public with motor cars, airplanes, radio sets, refrigerators, moving and talking pictures, and variety of less spectacular but no less useful innovations. These new products were certainly not an achievement of offices and bureaucrats.
The development of capitalism consists in everyone having the right to serve the consumer better and/or more cheaply.
There is no western, capitalistic country in which the conditions of the masses have not improved in an unprecedented way.
In spite of the anti-capitalistic policies of all governments and of almost all political parties, the capitalist mode of production is still fulfilling its social function in supplying the consumers with more, better and cheaper goods.
It is inherent in the nature of the capitalistic economy that, in the final analysis, the employment of the factors of production is aimed only toward serving the wishes of consumers.
The capitalistic social order, therefore, is an economic democracy in the strictest sense of the word. In the last analysis, all decisions are dependent on the will of the people as consumers. Thus, whenever there is a conflict between the consumers views and those of the business managers, market pressures assure that the views of the consumers win out eventually.
The capitalist system of production is an economic democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote. The consumers are the sovereign people. The capitalists, the entrepreneurs, and the farmers are the peoples mandatories.
Capitalism gave the world what it needed, a higher standard of living for a steadily increasing number of people.
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
The salesman thanks the customer for patronizing his shop and asks him to come again. But the socialists say: Be grateful to Hitler, render thanks to Stalin; be nice and submissive, then the great man will be kind to you later too.
--------------
1) Countries that were never capitalist and became socialist
2) Countries that were capitalist and became socialist
_______________________________________________________________________
3) Countries that became capitalist
4) Countries that were socialist and became capitalist
All 1 and 2 countries have seen a decline in their standard of living. 2 countries fair better than 1 countries because they start with an accumulated amount of economic power (like a spring pressed down has stored energy). But as 2 countries start to socialize the spring has few forces pushing down (adding energy) and many demands upon it to accomplish work, so the spring is loosened of it's energy. And as there is continually less energy added than energy withdrawn from the economic spring, you reach a point where all economic capital (energy in the spring) is exhausted...then you see economic collapse like what happened in the Soviet Union. 1 countries generally remain at subsistence levels, generally only adequately functioning as outside economic force is added to their spring (international aid, like how the Soviet Union supported Cuba, etc...until the Soviet system depleted itself of it's own economic power and pulled back from assisting Cuba, then Cuba declined back into subsistence) We also see the economic stagnation and decline in European countries like Sweden, France, etc. these countries were more capitalized than Russia was and they also less fully entered into socialism so they are hanging on, but stagnant. The spring is slowly losing energy, but they can go on this way for awhile still. The West German and East German nations really were as close to an actual experiment in the contrasts of capitalism and socialism as we could have hoped for. Same nation, same culture, same people...working with different economic systems achieved vastly different results. West Germany was the powerhouse of Western Europe. East Germany, while laughably being able to count itself as the "powerhouse" of Eastern Europe (Communist Europe) was so far below West Germany in economic measures that even many of the individual regions (states) within West Germany had larger economies than all of East Germany.
West Germany, the once economic powerhouse of Europe, itself then had to wrestle with stagnation as it absorbed East Germany and slowly tried to capitalize within the East. But the demands for social programs have kept the German spring from much of the economic power that they had shown in the past.
3 and 4 countries have generally seen a rise in their standard of living. 3 countries like Poland, Czech Republic, etc had the cultural roots that allowed a more easy transition to capitalism than some other Eastern European countries. In many cases in Eastern Europe capitalism is hampered from development by the continuation of political models that although moving from a fully communist system, are still far too socialist. I lived in Albania in the early 90s, it was the most economically backward country of Europe. It's per capita income had been less than $700 per person under communism and had nearly quadrupled by around 1995, and it now is around $7000 per person. I saw firsthand the ravages of socialism within Albania. But there started to be more cars on the streets, more goods in the stores, etc.
China is a great example to look at. After it's move into socialism it remained pretty much at subsistence levels. Then the economic situation changed dramatically in China. The ONE factor that changed it was the use of special economic zones that allowed the implementation of capitalist methods. What China is doing is tightly controlling all it's regions politically, but with great looseness allowed in those special zones. And even this small measure of capitalism within the vastness of China is keeping the whole country afloat.
Of course, America is the prime example of a capitalist nation. Why is America the leading nation in the world economically? Capitalism. Yes, we have moved slowly toward socialism, with some big steps recently. And who knows what our future holds politically. But for sure, if we move ever more socialist, our spring will have less and less energy put into it, until we drain ourselves of economic power. And part of the reason that Europe has been able to coast so long economically is that it could use America as a crutch...but if we weaken ourselves, there is no crutch for us.
So, yeah, McCabe et al, keep spouting nonsense when all the objective data denies your overall points. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/20/2010 9:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's my experience. I went to the Mall of America...and I went to Old Navy. We were looking for something for Ajna. Anyways, I tried something. I looked all over the store, looking at different clothing (men's, women's, and children's)...and you know what. I found NOT ONE CLOTHING ITEM made in America. Not ONE. Literally. I was absolutely flabbergasted. Now, where WERE they produced? These were some of the countries I saw multiple times...
Made in India
Made in Vietnam
Made in China
What's terribly interesting about this is that Old Navy (ESPECIALLY around Independence Day) really puts itself out there as being a rugged AMERICAN type place with American type clothing. But I couldn't find ONE CLOTHING ITEM that was made in the USA...but plenty that were made in China...a country you mentioned, Asher.
Honestly, it's made me think twice about supporting Old Navy...but then again, I haven't checked some of the OTHER stores at the Mall of America...
Is this the trend that Daniel is talking about?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/20/2010 8:19:34 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/20/2010 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | I wonder if one of the problems is our constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws. For example, let's say that a past, legal, economic practice was, for all practical purposes, unjustly exploitive (spelling?). Now, let's say the government now realizes that those past practices obligate us to try to remedy the injustices. Wouldn't our ex post facto prohibition prevent us from framing legislation IN THOSE TERMS?
So we end up having to claim that any new laws that are made to redistribute wealth "back" (however intentionally corrective they might actually be) are not actually punitive in any sense. Then, legislators are stuck with having to justify the legislation in terms of grounds that have nothing to do with any common-sensical notion of justice that justice-loving people can grasp. And this creates resentment and blow-back over time.
There is also the problem (and this occurs at every level of society and in every institution) of the "good 'ole boy system" saving face for their peers, past and present. This, too, creates the problem of having to articulate rationales for policies, etc that are counter-intuitive or unjustifiable since those rationales are worded so as to "hide" any wrong-doing (if only deriliction of duty) of others in the "good 'ole boy's club" that may have been a significant cause of the problem being addressed by the new policy.
Over time, this irrationality and accountability-avoidance keeps snow-balling into a SOFA where demagogues can exploit the anger and resentment of the majority.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/20/2010 9:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
My only addition is that I believe that if everybody contributed to society the best of his/her ability, we’d all be enjoying far beyond just our needs. I like to think that where people give the most they have, uniformly all will have more than they need; a true overflow and excess of provision.
and...
I'm even wondering if in the eschaton there will be "consumption" at all. Know what I mean?
I'd COMPLETELY agree, Tom. My personal take is this: when the "child locks" on human potential are removed (because our hearts have been purified), we will truly begin to see the infinity in the finitude of Creation. When people like Kallistos Ware talk about "spiritualizing the material", I believe he's talking about human consciousness apprehending and displaying the infinite potentials that lie in what we think of as just "dumb matter." Heck, we can already see what we've done technologically with things like silicon, salt, and other materials. When we learn to love (finally) we will have more than enough.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/20/2010 9:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Similitude:
I wonder if one of the problems is our constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws. For example, let's say that a past, legal, economic practice was, for all practical purposes, unjustly exploitive (spelling?). Now, let's say the government now realizes that those past practices obligate us to try to remedy the injustices. Wouldn't our ex post facto prohibition prevent us from framing legislation IN THOSE TERMS?
So we end up having to claim that any new laws that are made to redistribute wealth "back" (however intentionally corrective they might actually be) are not actually punitive in any sense. Then, legislators are stuck with having to justify the legislation in terms of grounds that have nothing to do with any common-sensical notion of justice that justice-loving people can grasp. And this creates resentment and blow-back over time.
Heh. Can you say "REPARATIONS", boys and girls?
I want my damn 40 acres and mule!!!!!!!
*******************************************************
Similtude:
There is also the problem (and this occurs at every level of society and in every institution) of the "good 'ole boy system" saving face for their peers, past and present. This, too, creates the problem of having to articulate rationales for policies, etc that are counter-intuitive or unjustifiable since those rationales are worded so as to "hide" any wrong-doing (if only deriliction of duty) of others in the "good 'ole boy's club" that may have been a significant cause of the problem being addressed by the new policy.
Over time, this irrationality and accountability-avoidance keeps snow-balling into a SOFA where demagogues can exploit the anger and resentment of the majority.
Think of the most influential "good 'ole boy's club" group for America since it's inception. Who is it largely? White male capitalists? Maybe?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/20/2010 8:18:10 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/20/2010 10:12 AM (GMT -6) | | D: Heh. Can you say "REPARATIONS", boys and girls?
I want my damn 40 acres and mule!!!!!!!
J: My point is this: IF a law was framed on those terms and PASSED, it probably WOULD be challenged constitutionally. Even usurping judges don't like setting unconstitutional precedents that might end up slapping the hands that currently feed them.
Of course, it's impossible NOW to do just reparations. We're too far removed from the original wrong. Moreover, even had they done it at the time, it would have been shamelessly unjust because they would have only applied it to the Confederate slave owners and not the "Union" slave owners.
What we have now are the very consequences that occur when injustices are NOT dealt with AS injustices with an intuitive sense of accountability, SPEEDILY!
D: Think of the most influential "good 'ole boy's club" group for America since it's inception. Who is it largely? White male capitalists? Maybe?
J: It happens in every institution. Power tends to corrupt. PERIOD. Where is slavery happening today? Isn't it also in black Africa?
The problem is this: Humans are sinful. When they have power, they wield it pathetically, from a moral point of view. Because sinful humans are too weak to even manage small amounts of stewardship well. How much more difficult is it when they have positions of power where the filthy rich have an interest in bribing them to abuse THAT degree of power unto their own self-intersest? It's a no-brainer if you think about it.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/20/2010 9:21:27 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/20/2010 12:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Reading Material for all prospective leaders:
Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing
by Sören Kierkegaard
--------------------------
Chapter 1: Introduction: Man and the Eternal
In relation to the eternal, a man ages neither in the sense of time nor in the sense of an accumulation of past events. There is something eternal in a man, and the eternal must be able to exist and to be grasped within every change.
Chapter 2: Remorse, Repentance, Confession: Eternity’s Emissaries to Man
Remorse is a guide that calls out to the wanderer that he should take care. In confession one becomes at one with himself.
Chapter 3: Barriers to Willing One Thing: Variety and Great Moments Are Not One Thing
To will one thing can only mean to will the good, because every other object is not a unity. The will that only wills that another object, therefore, must become double-minded.
Chapter 4: Barriers to Willing One Thing: The Reward-Disease
If a man can will one thing, then he must will the Good, for the Good alone is one.
Chapter 5: Barriers to willing One Thing: Willing Out of Fear of Punishment
If a man wills only the Good out of fear of being punished he does not will one thing. Such a man is double-minded.
Chapter 6:Barriers to Willing One Thing: Egocentric Service of the Good
If a man wills the Good and wills its victory out of self-centered willfulness he does not will one thing. He is double-minded.
Chapter 7: Barriers to Willing One Thing: Commitment to a Certain Degree
The person who only wills the Good up to a certain degree is double-minded.
Chapter 8: The Price of Willing Our Thing: Commitment, Loyalty, Readiness to Suffer All
If a man wills the good in truth, then he must be willing to do all for the good or be willing to suffer all for the good.
Chapter 9: The Price of Willing One Thing: The Exposure of Evasions
The one who wills the Good puts cleverness to an inward use in order to prevent all evasions, and thereby to help him enter into and persist in the commitment.
Chapter 10: The Price of Willing One Thing: An Examination of the Extreme Case of an Incurable Sufferer
The man who wills the Good in truth must be willing to suffer all for the Good.
Chapter 11: The Price of Willing One Thing: The Sufferer’s Use of Cleverness to Expose Evasion
The sufferer who wills the Good sincerely, uses this cleverness to cut off evasions and hence to launch himself into the commitment and to escape the disillusionments of choosing the temporal way.
Chapter 12: What Then Must I Do? The Listener’s Role in a Devotional Address
Kierkegaard asks the reader: "What kind of life do you live, do you will only one thing, and what is this one thing?
Chapter 13: What Then Must I Do? Live as an "Individual"
The author asks the reader: Do you live in such a way that you are conscious of being an individual?
Chapter 14: What Then Must I Do? Occupation and Vocation: Mean: and End
It is not whether your work is great or mean, whether you are a king or only a laborer, nor earning a great deal of money or gaining power, prestige or fame. What is important is whether your occupation is great or mean. Do you dare think of your occupation it as a responsibility for eternity?
Chapter 15: Conclusion: Man and the Eternal
Only the individual can truthfully will the Good. For he is in touch with the demand that calls for purity of heart by willing only one thing.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/20/2010 1:08 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/20/2010 1:20 PM (GMT -6) | | This is what I'm trying to get at. How does the CHURCH prophetically embody the life of the Kingdom and the age to come when it comes to property ownership, possessions, etc.? Should we just relate our possession to ourselves and to others in the Kingdom (forget outside the Church, let's just do family relations for now) the same fundamental WAY that the capitalist world does but just minus the corruption? OR do we realte in a fundamentally different WAY? That's why I start with the end in mind. How ought the end/goal of human being and relating instruct our being and relating NOW (in spite of the obvious need to live complicitly in the world on some level)?
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 11/20/2010 12:36:09 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/20/2010 1:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
How does the CHURCH prophetically embody the life of the Kingdom and the age to come when it comes to property ownership, possessions, etc.? Should we just relate our possession to ourselves and to others in the Kingdom (forget outside the Church, let's just do family relations for now) the same fundamental WAY that the capitalist world does but just minus the corruption? OR do we realte in a fundamentally different WAY?
Let's start here...
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Now, this is straight up and down capitalism at work right here...right? 
One thing in the Church should be clear: from a given believer's perspective, whatever "belongs" to the believer should be understood to ALREADY belong to God and they are provided for us to do GOOD WORKS to others that praise the Father. Hell, if the Church could get THIS right we'd be seeing tons of difference.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/20/2010 12:40:00 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 189 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:04 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|