Gaudere is right. I didn’t mean in perpetuum. And you are correct in saying Genesis doesn’t mention an Ice Age. But even in the worst conditions man lived in, as SuaSponte points out:
Keep in mind, Man evolved during that Ice Age. It is unreasonable for Gaudere to expect cave men to have “medicine, science and technology” considering we didn’t even have these until the past few hundred years. Not owning property now does not make those things go away. Gaudere can’t prove that were man to never have fallen humanity would not have those things, as that is a purely hypothetical situation.
Gaudere continues:
And now, back together again, on their new world tour…
I am saying a spirtual union with an immortal being would grant everlasting life. I am not aware that Buddhism offers that. I did say in the other thread that Taoism does have potential as a solution, but the fact that it does not present the solution in terms of the problem means the solution can be easily misinterpreted. Taoism(Tao-chia not the cults) and yes, Buddism (later) both teach:
Buddhism is futhermore monastic. You can not love you neighbor in isolation.
Christianity does teach this, though, as does Taoism. I don’t think you can argue with the reality of man’s fallen nature, even in Pax Americana.
Why would perfect people adhere to an imperfect system?
I suppose in a system wide situation, this would basically be the case, as zero equals zero. I’m not sure how you define “wealth” though. However:
These people are living quite well, I assure you. Anywhere there is a multitude there is food. From Mark 8:17 “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet see or understand? Do you have a hardened heart? HAVING EYES, DO YOU NOT SEE? AND HAVING EARS, DO YOU NOT HEAR?” Apparently, Jesus’s emphasis in the NASB . Well, the passage I was looking for goes “Worry not where you shall sleep or what you shall eat…” but danged if I can find it.
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?” — Matthew 6:25
And I pointed out that I’m pretty sure modern-hunter gatherers work about the same amount. Did they never fall? How are we all fated to toil unfairly if we can work the same as we did before the fall to provide for ourselves?
No economic and government system is “perfect”; they either work well with human nature or they work not so well. If you can change human nature, you can suit it to whatever system you choose for whatever result you desire. I would say that removing the concept of “property” is a pretty fundamental change in human nature.
Some food, perhaps, but enough to keep all from malnutrition and starvation at all times? Any real-life examples? How could one person alone in America survive without the concept of property, aside from the charity of others who do have the concept of property?
Considering how poor an idea we have of how people really lived 12000 years ago, I’d have to ask what exactly is “fallen nature” and how you know they didn’t have it back then too? Is it just that we have more possessions now?
No, but the climate change is generally regarded as the impetus for agriculture and other technological developments; if there aren’t enough edible plants around you better learn to grow your own or starve, and if fish aren’t readily speared in shallow water you better learn about nets and fishing hooks. But why should you spend months farming a field, if anyone can come by and take the food you worked so hard to provide, since it isn’t yours?
I do think not having a concept of property would impede technological advances. The importance of “stuff” to someone depends on how much toil you put into it. (I claim wildly, but it seems to make sense.) Want my pencil? Sure, take it, easy to get another. However, if you limit your “stuff” to things that are readily avaliable and that you are willing to give up, major projects seem to be impossible. Og may give up his rock, and I may give up my pencil, but I doubt Og will spend months building a boat and cheerfully allow another person to sail off with it. And I may let you take a sketch, but I won’t let you wander off with a painting that took me 20 hours. What about, say, creating a spaceship, with years of work from your dedicated tribe; would you let tribe B take it? How many hours will you work to create a crossbow if someone else can simply take it away?
I can see a property-less tribe if they need little more than food, shelter, water and art, but it seems as if medicine and technology would fall by the wayside. You would have to work quite a while at a thing that is not readily replaceable to maintain technology; it is hard to believe that either 1) people would do so and then readily release for no equitable return what they worked so long for (can’t barter or trade if there is no property) and 2) they would work for much more than their own subsistence if there is no benefit for them doing so. I suppose they would be supported by the tribe–no one has property, they can take the food and no one will say boo–while they work, and therefore are at least as well off as those who don’t work on technology. However, the other tribe members will have to work harder to make up for one or several not gathering food. Therefore, the overall workload will increase beyond that of hunter-gatherer tribes even if there is no property.
I would say that a propertyless society will either 1) require nearly as much toil as any other, if you want to maintain what we have (technology, medicine, etc.) or 2) revert back to stone-age technology. The reason I say “nearly as much toil” is because lacking property will probably lead to people not desiring too many work-intensive luxuries, since they can just be taken away. However, producing, say, cars and computers and artificial hearts–you could make them, but they would not be yours; you’d have the car as long as you were currently in it, and then somone else might take it. It doesn’t seem to lead people to want to build cars if they can’t even keep one of their own; why even bother, unless you’re really bored? So what happens to time and resource intensive things like computers, cars and medicine, if they may not be of any benefit to those who work so hard for them? It sounds like you are truly toiling for an unfair reward then, if none of the things you toil for are reasonably certain to benefit you. Maintaining the concept of property seems to me to be far more likely to lead people to maintain our current level or technology and encourage advances; then when people work and create, it will benefit them, rather than benefiting anyone who desires their hover-car (or whatever).
How does the interrelation of toil and the ice age ending and the climate change and the famine and the turning away from God work? Now, the toil for unfair rewards is supposed to be punishment for original sin, right? But people had to toil harder because of the famine. However, you said the famine caused “falling away from God”. How can the famine be the cause for original sin, when it is the famine itself that required the toil (the punishment)? You would think that if climate change and attendant famine caused the toil, it would be a sin prior to the climate change that would be the Original Sin. Then it would go Sin → famine → toil instead of famine → both toil and sin. Should the people have never started with agriculture and the resultant property, stayed scattered bands of hunter-gatherers, starving where they were or travelling far to find new areas where they might survive? There are certainly modern hunter-gatherer tribes; it seems like you would be saying that hunter-gatherers did not experience original sin, since they do not toil as much as us and have few “things”.
Wonderful spiritual advice. However, unless you worry a little tiny bit about what you will eat and take some action to provide for yourself, you starve.
I never said he said it. I said he taught it.
Libertarian continues:
Forgive me if I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying man could serve God and have property at the same time. You have come around to my point of view? When I said “an either/or situation” I meant you can either do A or B, but not both.
Wow. I didn’t know it was possible for someone to be so fallen away that they can not concieve of matter existing unless it is owned by someone. I guess those stray cats in my neighborhood caterwalling all night are figments of my imagination!
? Did this man and Jesus go to highschool together or something? We are not made aware of the man’s adoration of his riches until after he refuses to get rid of them all. Had he not loved his riches, he would have gotten rid of them all. If Jesus somehow(?) knew the man loved his riches more than God why would he have bothered explaining the path to salvation to this man. I believe the arguement you are trying to make is called hoc ergo propter hoc.
Agreed.
He said “give the money to the poor.” And who are the poor? Those who beg for alms are the poor of man, as are those in debt; give to those who ask. However, those who have the “riches of heaven” do not beg for alms anymore than those who have the riches of man. Perhaps you have read Luke chapter 16? I can’t see how it is wrong to give money to one who need to pay his debts – you aren’t giving “evil to the poor,” you are freeing them from their worldly obligations.
I wrote:
Libertarian responded:
You said God is the source of property. That implies God is in favor of it. Does one not advocate what one is in favor of?
Why won’t those cats shutup? No one owns them, therefore Libertarian says they don’t exist. One of us is obviously wrong. Say Lib, if a tree falls in the woods, and no one owns the tree…
Jesus told his followers to give up their property, and I am willing to hear out and respond to arguments to the contrary. Therefore, property, in the eyes of Jesus and by extension God, is wrong. And how can you have property, and this be wrong, unless the propery is something stolen? [hijack]Drug laws![/hijack] (kidding) Thus property is theft.
I disagree. Explain. Or if you know God well, tell him to give me a billion dollars if this delights him so well.
When I tried to add context to one of his Biblical quotes, he wrote:
OK, Lib. I shouldn’t have implied you were trying to pull a fast one. I hope you do not mind my adding context to your quote in order to rebut the point I thought you were making. Sorry. My point was that Christ was is preaching to the unconverted here, who, one would presume, still have worldly wealth, and telling them to dispose of it wisely. You were implying, I believe, that since Jesus was telling them how to rid themselves of wealth, he was somehow really saying that having it was OK. If I might correct my statement earlier, to make it more clear – a person that has mammon must be untrustworthy in handling it, if the manner of getting rid of it is regarded with such importance. “So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?”
I apologize for considering some of your statements bizarre to me because I could not understand them. I may not have time to respond to all your statements myself, so just let me know if I miss something.
Regarding the woman, about whom Jesus said “All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on,” I said Jesus’s statement that she gave “more” than people who actually gave more money was a “commendation” of her behavior, Libertarian called this a coincidental correlation. Perhaps.
No, she did not give the money to God. The text clearly says she put in into the temple treasury. Dropping rocks, flat and metallic though they may be, into a lockbox inside a building is not evil as far as I can tell. Am I missing something? I would presume this money went for alms, or at least the woman presumed so, and this is merely anonymous giving. “Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,” as Jesus said.
No, I don’t. Thanks for clearing this up.
I wrote:
To which, Libertarian replied
What about Matthew 2:23-28?
David stole food when he was in need and was hungry, and Jesus justifies his stealing of food for presumable the same reason in the same way. Now there is a double indemnity going on here, as not only is Jesus stealing food, but his is also picking grain on the Sabbath, and Jesus make two separate statements rebuking their judgement for each offense.
Libertarian also tries to argue Jesus had a purse thus:
I’m sorry, but I missed the first quote! Let’s see, Jesus said something to Judas. No one knew why. Some thought that was what he was talking about. So?
I see no evidence that Jesus had authority of the money. He was not telling the money what to do. Perhaps, people thought he had authority of Judas Iscariot. I hate to tell you, later passages prove that they thought wrong. But I don’t want to spoil the ending for anyone
Perhaps. But I see no evidence that others either made deposits or withdrawals, let alone Jesus. Some of the followers may have, at times of weakness – I’ll concede this. Perhaps John is merely waxing nostalgic? Perhaps he does not want to imply that just because Judas had a weakness for money, anyone who has a weakness in this area are quite as evil in character as Judas turns out to be. Or, perhaps Judas, out of the group, held the only purse, and John is making that clear.
You implied Jesus was not against the ownership of property because he spoke in his parables about characters who owned property and otherwise used property symbolically. This implies that you can somehow make a parable against property without using property in them. I do not see how this is possible.
Sorry about the third person, but we aren’t the only people here. I’m just trying to keep the discussion open to whoever wants to jump in. I’ve knocked 'em down again though, in my opinion.
Thanks
“to represent or spell in the characters of another alphabet?” Huh. Riches and money are not the same thing, I insist. My dictionary says mammon is “material wealth or possessions” and then quotes Matthew 6:24 as an example of the usage.
“With God all things are possible.” — Jesus
[/QUOTE]
“With God all things [including completely ignoring what I, Jesus, just said] are possible”
:rolleyes: Yes, I’m sure that is what Jesus meant. I’m sure he wasn’t assuring his followers it is possible to live without property, based on their previous question.
So that’s the way of it with you, eh?
Did He stand on the Mount preaching the Sermon and become suddenly mute when it came time to teach that property is theft? Did Jesus play a game of charades while they all ate loaves and fishes?
Either/or, huh? So which are you saying, that Jesus did not serve God, or that He walked around naked?
More meaningless filler.
You didn’t know that Jesus knew mens’ thoughts?
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?” — Matthew 9:4
Somehow? Hello?
C’m’ere. No, closer. No, come here, seriously. I want to whisper something to you. {{{{{HE WAS GOD!}}}}}
I’ve heard of no such fallacy called, “hoc ergo propter hoc”. Did you mean “post hoc ergo propter hoc” or “cum hoc ergo propter hoc”? If so, explain how one of them applies.
Are those riddles? As best I can tell from your desultory digressions, you believe that money is not property (and neither are food and clothing), but that it’s okay to have property for which you are in debt.
Or, have I misread you, and you are making some kind of point?
“Advocate” is a transitive verb.
You resort to that kind of jabberwocky so frequently that I really must call your hand on it. If you have a point to make, make it. This is great debates, the top echelon of SDMB. We do not make arguments here by thumbing our noses at our adversaries. We use reason, logic, and rhetoric to raise issues and make arguments.
I have little faith in your promise. Nevertheless, hope springs eternal. Consider this:
“As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus.” — Matthew 27:57
Didn’t you say that Jesus said (or taught, or mimed) that stealing is okay? And that He Himself was a thief?
“Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!” — Matthew 7:9-11
As for your billion, ask Him yourself, though I cannot conceive why you would want it. It can’t be that you would give it to the poor; otherwise, you would alreay have sold your computer and all that you own.
Or is this all stuff you’re just supposin’?
Yes, I do mind very much. If you want to raise straw men, go to the Pit.
He was saying to be a good steward of your wealth (property, money). Use it for good.
If, Mr. or Ms. Mullaney. If you have not been trustworthy…
See Joseph of Arimathea (op. cit.) for an example of trustworthy stewardship of wealth.
As far as I’m concerned, you’ve missed everything. I recommend you start over.
Yes. The boat, it would seem. Are you saying that it is filthy mammon when held by virile young men, but benign rocks when held by old women?
It was hardly anonymous, since Jesus made sure THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS ABOUT IT.
The last verse in Matthew 2 is 23 — and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: “He will be called a Nazarene.”
I think you mean Mark.
What a vomitous load of drivel. Are you so tied down by your presumptions that you would accuse God of stealing?
Did Jesus not tell the rich man, “Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony”? — Matthew 19:18
Was Jesus, in your view, a hypocrite?
David didn’t steal the bread; the priests gave it to him, and for good reason. “So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the LORD and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.” 1 Samuel 21:6
What (a few of) the religion politicians found wrong with David eating the bread was that it had been consecrated to God. They felt that he and his companions desecrated it, just as they felt that Jesus had desecrated the Sabbath.
I’m finished with you. These pearls are too precious.
You are right, were you to find an opportunity to become a modern hunter/gatherer in the ancient sense, I agree that you would work 20 hours a week, if that. However, your rewards would be just. I can not vouch for the current spiritual state of anyone, let alone some faraway tribe I have never met; however I would have no reason to believe they would not be redeemed.
You say “No economic and government system is “perfect”; they either work well with human nature or they work not so well.” Well, I would argue that the Kingdom of God is as perfect a system as I have run across. I am not trying to use some fundamentalist circular logic here, i.e. “it is from god and therefore it is perfect.” Nor would I say the birds have come home to roost.
You say that removing the concept of “property” is a pretty fundamental change in human nature. But I am not saying the Jesus’s teaching are about removing the concept of property.While a follower of Jesus would not himself own property, he would still be bound to respect the property rights of others. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fullfill it. If Og’s friend Perry had a bag, Og could not merely take that bag and call it his without violating the holy spirit. Yet should Og himself have a bag, and were it to go missing, he would pay it no mind.
I said anywhere there is a multitude these is food. Perhaps that was an overreaching statement. I could not say anywhere there is a cow, there is grass. But where there is not grass a cow would not long tarry. (Not that any of my art teachers bought it, but you get theidea.;)) Now there are certaintly starving people in the world. That they can not leave the place where they are and go to the places where there is food are twofold. On the one hand, they may be so tied to their possessions that they can not leave them even in the face of death. OTOH, there are those who can not leave where they are because of the fallen state of others. Perhaps there are men with guns and barbed wire and concrete and iron bars who do not permit them. Four walls do not a prison make of course – perhaps they are free to wander the barren hillside where they are kept to rot by the gunnery over the next hill. Or a border fallen man has placed on the earth that they may not cross on pains of death because those who control that border have no love in their hearts.
Now you have suggested the Christ has no followers as I have defined them. I thought there could be no such beings myself. They are not easy to find. What do you want, names? All have new names in the Kingdom, so what good would that do you? I have lost touch, nor could I easily put them in touch with you. Nor could I easily regain contact with them. I am a lost lamb but I am well hid.
You bring up charity, a concept I have mused on greatly. The weak, the half awake, the soupnazis, the lesser church, call them what you will. They are always willing to give the whole 5% of their love to god. The high church could easily survive without them, but they do make things simpler. Poor lost souls. It would be better for them to give the utmost once and be done with it.
You ask what exactly is “fallen nature” and how I know man ever had a time before it. It is not just that we have more possessions now. I can see man’s fallen nature manifest in the real world. If you can not you lead a charmed life. If man’s suffering has not touched you heart a million links will not help you.
Yes, there have been many marvels to come from man’s keen insight and apprehension apart from the spiritual realm.
O Gaudere. Why would one spend one’s life growing food for their fellow man? Is greed the only possible motivation?
You say in the Kingdom of God, major projects would be impossible. You doubt Og would spend months building a boat and cheerfully allow another person to sail off with it. Yet if Og could ask twenty or a hundred or a thousand to help him build a boat in not too many days, it would be not great matter to him should he lose it. He could easily do so again, and again. For, if a man asks you to go with him a mile, go with him two. Thus are the ways of the Kingdom.
You say you would let no one have a painting that took you days to paint. I would think you would be flattered should someone want one of your paintings. In a year you would have a hundred paintings, in a decade a thousand, in a lifetime thousands, and yet you would never part with any of them until your death? Who will have them then?
“What about, say, creating a spaceship, with years of work from your dedicated tribe?” you ask. The S.S. Sid Meier? Would I let tribe B take it? On the test run? Is this a one way trip, or a reentry vehicle? Why didn’t tribe B help, and why can’t they just build their own spaceship, if they needed one? Or at least let us know they might want one and we could have gotten an economy of scale thing going. Does the kingdom of god need spaceships? :eek: Eventually! I’d consider it. Of course, I’d have to run this by every one else in the tribe, and if someone said no, I’d have to say no, and then I’d expect them to respect that. If they are going to make a big deal about it, I mean, if the sun is burning out, and Tribe B didn’t build their own spaceship… I suppose there would just be those willing to stay behind and those who would not. Staying behind to die would certaintly seem like an unjust reward to those who worked on the craft – but in the model of the love of Jesus, who died on the cross, sometimes things just don’t work out. We all have taken the leap off the temple and sooner or later, we must dash against the stones.
You say medicine would fall by the wayside, that no one would become doctors and heal the sick without the proper motive of greed. As you seem to be saying is the only reason we have doctors now. Is there a doctor in the house? But perhaps a doctor, evil creature as he might be, would simple lie, and say he did his work out of love and not purely out of greed. Again, I do not think words can convince you otherwise. Still it would be better for any doctor to leave his practice and follow Christ. “Physician, heal thyself.”
I have never planted seeds, tended crops, nor harvested the field. And yet I have eaten often enough. I know while I have been attending to other matters all this time, farmers have had to tend to bigger fields themselves in my conspicuous absence. Still, it would be better for them to leave their plows in the field, even though the harvest is ripe, to follow the Christ.
I do not know if you have a car, a computer, or even an artificial heart. And if you do, I do not know if you made them yourself. Perhaps even there is someone today producing cars and keeping them locked in a garage somewhere. And neither those cars, nor these paintings of yours, will ever see the light of day I would suppose. Were cars so plentiful that you could not walk down the street without seeing one, on the other hand, I suppose it would be no different from your pencil. And if a man worked making cars, it would certaintly be easy enough for him to grab the next one off the line should his go amiss.
Imagine how many fewer cars the world would need in this situation. You could hitchhike quite easily. Cars would not merely idle about. Not to mention, without the constraints of property, everyone could live near whatever project, big or small, they were engaged in. Fewer cars means less workload for man. And this is just one example.
Why even bother, unless you’re really bored? you ask. Why do you bother with your art? Why do you bother responding to my posts? Why would you bother? When people work and create, it will benefit them sometimes. Must you always work to benefit your neighbors in the Kingdom? Of course not. We are all familiar with the give and take aspect of human relationships, even a touch of the divine does not change that. I helped build your spaceship. Tis a bitch about tribe B. Now come over here and help me string this crossbow.
Are you channeling Jerry Lewis :D?
On the physical plain. I mean the whole death thing too, but leaving that aside for the moment.
There was slightly more toil, correct.
That is my theory. But, this did not happen in all places at the same time. And perhaps, to explain further, by all places I mean all the various hearts of men as well.
Ah, but you see, the toil is not in and of itself the punishment. The unjust reward is also a component.
I’m not following you. If A(famine) then B(original sin) then C(punishment), therefore if D(some sin) then B(original sin), therefore D -> A -> C (&!A) -> C & D.
Or as you say:
I’m not being a stickler for logic here as a way to ignore your argument – I genuinely don’t quite follow and do not want to risk misunderstanding you. And I’m not exactly sure I have a good answer – mixing science and spiritually is a tricky deal.
But, let me wager a guess, anyway. It is possible that for some reason, the very nature of agriculture as a way of life different from the life before, would have presented man with a conumdrum – an intricate and difficult puzzle, or perhaps better, a temptation, and that without the wisdom of god restored by Christ, they lost their spiritually. The results of falling for this temptation would result in the various “deadly” sins. For example, There is a field, and Cain’s crops grow more poorly than Abel’s crop. Cain, not knowing any better, decides this implies “god loves Abel more than me.” Jealousy, anger, and the resulting consequence of Cain killing Abel.
Now am I trying to say that at no time in our 100,000 years on this earth prior to then no one ever murdered? No. I can’t say that. Isolated incidents, entirely possible. But nothing systematic and ongoing.
Of course, someone might say I’m mixing my deadly sins – hate versus greed. Perhaps Cain was greedy too. But let me know how what you think of this WAG and I will try to tie us any loose ends.
Ugh. I know the argument some would make – that God allowed man to fall so he could bring him to greater glory. I can’t argue that point. I mean mankind lived this way for 90,000 years. So, if the drought had not come for 90,000 years more, a mere fraction of time on the geological scale, would we miss the technology and other advancements we have had for only the past few hundred years anyway? But I don’t think a few thin years many thousands of years ago should trap mankind in the bondage we current find ourselves emeshed.
With God all things are possible. Which is to say, a fundamentalist tack on this does not work. You must use the spirit, a.k.a. Wisdom, to “not worry” and yet provide for one’s self.
So, in order to avoid the “unfair toil” part of punishment for original sin, all we have to do is become hunter-gatherers? This seems as if you do indeed think civilization is a bad thing. And becoming hunter-gatherers does not necessarily remove the concept of personal property.
So, you do not have property, but other people do. Then why do you claim Jesus stole? He would not take grain that did not belong to Him if He respected the proprty rights of others.
Oooookaaaaaay…
I am not sure that you can claim that there was very little suffering before. On what do you base this besides speculation and storeis of paradise? There was still disease, cold, hunger, and I do not think man’s basic nature has changed so that there was not murder or war (albeit on a smaller scale). Even chimps murder.
I thought the fact that you had to work harder for the same amount of food was the unjust bit. It helps if you do not simply tell me I am wrong; I would rather you said I was wrong and explained exactly what you do mean, so I can follow your reasoning.
So, what you seem to be saying is: there was a climate change, and some turned to agriculture. This led them to value possessions and therefore(?) turn from God. In addition, because they could grow more food, more people were born. This is overall a bad thing, since having possessions leads to hate and anger. If we get rid of the idea of possessions and everyone loves each other perfectly, everything will be perfect and we’ll get back together with God and not have to toil so much.
I wrote out some responses to your answers to my questions about production and technology, but I’m not going to post them. Your premise seems to be: if everyone was perfectly loving and did not care particularly about their own or their loved one’s welfare more than anyone else’s, everything would be as good as it could possibly be. I agree that this would work if everyone was that way–however, a few selfish people could take over if everyone was not, and hoard as much as they could. Eventually, it seems the selfish would eliminate the wholly selfless. The selfish would want some sort of protection from each other, so here come laws and morals, and we’re back where we started, only the less selfish have been weeded out. However, I think we are talking about a major change to have people not care that their children will die because tribe B took their spaceship. It is, personally, something I find so unrealistic that attempting it is not worthwhile; better to work with human nature to achieve your ends, than to try to change fundamental things about it, IMHO. However, anyone who wants to try your solution, goferit.
Essentially, I do not think we “fell”; we adapted to different living conditions which resulted in where we are today. Whether there were not really “possessions” before then is also undetermined–as I noted, they had art and particular weapons and tools. Admittedly, if they all loved each other perfectly they would cheerfully toil on their carved spear and then allow someone else to take it, but I do not believe human nature was ever that wholly and universally selfless. Even social animals have a concept of “mine”; unless you are positing that man was never prey to instincts back then, I suspect they did have possessions. Whether we are less in touch with God is also undetermined, IMO. The fact that the OT speaks of a time when we were in paradise seems no more surprising to me than all the people who think we were perfect, honest and happy back in the Fifties. We have reliable history, so we can confirm the Fifties were different, but not really any better than before; we cannot do so 12000 years back, but I suspect, again, that it was different, but not a paradise. I would not wish to give up civilization just so I can work only 20 hours a week gathering roots; and as I noted, if you want all the things we have today, we will have to work for them.
I agree that death, murder, disease, starvation, etc. is bad. However, I do not think you have established that things were so superior back then that we have “fallen” and we must do X to get back to where we once were. If everyone becomes perfectly loving, I agree a lot of our problems would go away. However, this won’t take us back to paradise since we were never in paradise, IMHO.
You have asked me how Jesus taught that property was theft, and yet he did not say so. See Luke Chapter 8, verses 9 though 18, which is a parable about Wisdom, my emphasis:
Now I had earlier presented to you a parable about a biblical literalist, who did lack all Wisdom yet kept only true to the “Word of God,” and I joked that to do so would mean such a person would be walking around naked. You did not understand this then, as you wrote:
Now, in your response to my last post, you ask:
Do you not yet understand what I said of the foolish man?
But let me ask you straight out, lest you think I am creating ore meaningless filler, you refered to “property (and other atoms”? How do you mean this? Do you think that an atom, or group of atoms, not owned by someone, exists? Please answer plainly.
Of course Jesus knew man’s thoughts at times, just as anyone knows what a man is thinking at times when they know what kind of man they are dealing with! If I tell a plumber I have a leak in my pipe, is he thinking corn cob? If I tell a painter my wall needs a new coat, is he thinking to himself where he can find a jacket that big? Jesus knew that should the Teachers of the Law, who therefore knew the Old Testiment well, heard him forgiving a man’s sins, they would recall that under the Law this is blasphemy, and therefor think Jesus was blaspheming.
Jesus was God made man. What is your point? How does this give him amazing psychic powers? Did he jump from the temple and fly as well?
I already gave my rebuttal. I should not have bothered trying to speak your language.
Jesus plainly said to give to those who ask of you. Is it evil to ask beg for alms? Love of Money is the root of all evil. (I know when you read that last sentence what you will be thinking! Does that make me God, Lib?)
As for your debts, it is wise to pay them. Do you not know people are jailed and tortured for not doing so?
Forgive my humble abilities. I do not think it is forbidden to additionally use wisdom to argue, or to disprove of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion. If a moderator tells me these are forbidden, I will have a hard time making my case with you and will take my argument elsewhere.
Very good point! A rich man who had become a disciple. If this is where you rest your case, I might point out Judas was also a disciple. So being a disciple may not always portend salvation.
I never said that Jesus said (or taught, or mimed) that stealing is okay. I asked whether or not Jesus stole food. However, Jesus taught it is not wrong to take food if you are hungry. Therefore, Jesus did not steal food, and if fact his disciples were the ones picking the grain, so my assertion was indeed wrong. Jesus said “[David] and his companions ate the consecrated bread–which was not lawful for them to do.” I understand now – thank you for your clarification. Still, I am unclear why was Jesus’s taking of the grain unlawful, then? Nevertheless, I now agree with your point that Jesus respected the property rights of others.
You continue the point you are trying to make that God is “delighted” to give me property thus:
I would think this means God will give me food despite my not owning property. You are trying to say that by my argument, eating is gluttony?
Luke 7:33-35
You then wrote:
Ad hominem. Ignored.
Raise straw men – i.e. “A a weak or imaginary argument set up only to be easily confuted.” Implying you were purposefully taking a quote out out context was wrong, but that was not my arguement in and of itself.
He was not saying use it for good. He is saying to dispose of it wisely. We do indeed differ on this point and I do not see where you have refuted my argument. If you can not refute it, merely repeating your point does not make my argument a straw man.
I wrote:
You replied:
So then Judas Iscariot, who was also a disciple, must also have been trustworthy with wealth. Did he not sell Jesus into death for thirty silver pieces and give this money to the temple treasury?
I wrote:
You say I am missing the boat. No matter. Like Jesus and Paul, watch me walk on water ;).
You wrote:
Nope. You said that she was giving something evil to God. But without Love, money is merely rock for it is man’s love of it which gives it a value it is not worth. As she was giving it away, she must not have loved it, so therefore it is merely rock to her. Thus what she is doing can not be considered evil.
Oops. Thanks!
::sigh:: OK. Jesus taught that property was theft. Your turn.
Well, your pearls of logic have been quite interesting. I wish you would go the extra mile on this, but if not, thanks for coming as far as you have.
Wow. The OP, with its emphasis on the environmental character of the “Fall of Man” as in Genesis, rather than on the later Xtian (Augustinian and Calvinist) interpretation of “Original Sin” smacks strongly of Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael. I recommend that book very strongly. No, despite the name, it’s not about the Biblical Ishmael, it’s about the idea of the “necessity” of agriculture. Quinn makes the points that “improvements” in agriculture increase the human population (for pretty straightforward biological reasons), and that agriculture is only even necessary (as a standard practice) for a population increased by agriculture!
Other than that, I’d say the doctrine of “Original Sin” is probably not from Jesus. The following is off top my head, so it’s a little shaky:
Paul may have been inspired by certain ideas floating around the rabbinical tradition to say what he said about mankind generally being imperfect and about the legacy of Adam. This is sort of a proto-version of the Original Sin doctrine. (Dr. Hyam Maccoby, in The Mythmaker speculated that there was some influence on Paul from a pre-Christian Gnostic movement that may have been in Hellenistic Asia, too.)
Augustine extrapolated his (yes, his) doctrine of Original Sin from Paul (and from the writer of Hebrews?).
Calvin took it even further.
Jesus, though he may not have entirely agreed with Pelagius (e.g., about the primacy of personal morality and perfection, and the lack of necessity of atonement through sacrifice? I’m not conversant in Pelagian theory.) seemed pretty contemptuous of those rabbis who blamed congenital physical defects on the parents’ sin. As I don’t recall him saying anything in the Gospels to advocate “Original Sin” as such, I suppose he might have despised that, too–but maybe not.
I like this. I get to refer to two of my favorite books, Ishmael, and The Mythmaker, in one post!
I just wanted to mention, as far as I am concerned, the Calvanist idea of original sin is bunk.
This is most certaintly true.
Well, Jesus definitely thought man was in a fallen state (see vipers, brood of) and that they could be redeemed and come into God’s kingdom. As for whether he believed man had ever been one with God, I suppose you are probably right. He certaintly said along the lines of, unless you be like little children, you can not come into the kingdom. I can’t make much of that though.
If mankind generally wasn’t imperfect, then what did they need a savior for? Paul may have even been inspired by Jesus, although I can’t say to what extent – I don’t consider his writings particularily well thought out.
I’m confused though as to which side you are thinking Jesus came down on versus Pelagius. I’m not conversant either.
OK, but that is not what Original sin is. And that may have been His point.
I didn’t say that. I said we should follow the teaching of Jesus. No, can one be a hunter gatherer and still follow the teachings of Jesus? If one can be a hunter-gatherer, yes. But that is not an all inclusive grouping.
Civilization in and of itself a bad thing? No. Civilizations which are bad are a bad thing, as is total anarchy. Is a kingdom not a form of civilization?
I fail to see your point.
I was wrong why I tried to argue that point in such a manner. I knew better. (aside: The beggar, a Dominican father, who started me on my spiritual path did make this argument, and to me it made perfect sense at the time) You may of course respect the “property rights” of others. Although I would say that is a strange concept to be introducing. I mean do you respect my “property rights”? If yes, and I then say I own the whole world, do you then have to jump into space? If you say I do not have the authority, then from whence does my authority come? You can not eat tommorow’s bread today nor sleep in a hundred rooms, true? If you are locked in a rich man’s silo, should you just starve to death because stealing from him would be wrong?
And now you are making fun of me, apparently, and implying I am nuts, I guess, because I can not point somewhere and say – look, there is the kingdom of god. Pilate, IIRC, asked Jesus to do essentially the same thing, and even Jesus could not do it. The kingdom is on this earth but not of this earth.
Perhaps man, in the process of evolving from chimps (I know we’re actually “cousins” but just try to keep up) reached a level where whatever petty things chimps murder for were not important to us. At which point, I think we would call that evolved creature man and not animal. I never said there was not suffering before. I do not know why you are changing the subject. Man’s inhumanity to man, as we are agreed, did not exist on the scale it has existed since the fall. I mean, if you charted the absense of man’s inhumanity to man on a graph, can we not agree that there is a definite fall around this time and since?
The unjust reward is the result of man’s inhumanity to his fellow man. Now, no doubt you will point out that chimps hoard (and force others to work for them for) food, hence the great chimp civilizations out there :rolleye:. Is it not inhuman, if you see a man (or woman) starving to say, ah, I will give you food, but you must be my slave.
You keeping implying that the cure is always the opposite of the disease, like the old lady who swallowed the fly. And then a spider to catch the fly, then the mouse, cat, dog, horse, etc. I am saying that because of the fall, there arose inequities. Inequites, which unlike some insane murderer[s] who may or may not have existed before the fall, continue to this very present day.
Again, I submit, that there are people this way, and at the same time there are in fact many people who have “taken over” and hoard as much as they can. But there are issues of critical mass at play. The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which grows, unitl it get so big birds come and make nests in its branches. You are saying kingdom can not exist until such time as the birds come home to roost. When you see homeless people building spaceships, you will gladly hop on the bandwagon!
Building a spaceship? I am sure the church, it the present time, would agree with you!
Well, look. We got into this discussion because you said any religion was as good as anyother, because you said they all taught “love thy neighbor.” I proposed the xtianity was superior in this respect. You now seem to be saying – there is no point in loving your neighbor, because he will only dispise you, so therefore loving you neighbor is pointless. And you are basing your argument, not upon whether the principles of jesus’s teachings would eliminate man’s toil for unjust rewards, but on whether people following Christ’s teachings would be able to put people into outer space in an equitable fashion. As opposed to now, where anyone who wants to can just build a spaceship? Just because it is ultimatey not a perfect world, you can’t argue that the Kingdom of God is not more perfect than any more worldly “kingdom.”
Let’s say Perry carves a spear. Og comes and says “give me your spear.” Perry gives it to him. he makes another. Og says, “give me your spear.” At which point Peery points out he already has a spear, and if Og takes his he will have none. At that point I would see no good reason for Perry to give him another spear. I do not think this would be unxtian of Perry. If Og went to a third party to argue that Perry was not giving him the spear, i.e. he “sues” Perry for it, Perry should give it to him. And his carving tools as well. And he sould tell the third party – “Og no longer needs to ask me for a spear, for he has all the tools he needs now to make his own.” Then Perry would go get another carving stone. Perhaps Og loses his carving stone and even breaks the one he has over his knee. He would be being a bad steward of that spear, but I would forgive him and should he ask, I would give him another spear. However you do not have to fogive a man forever. 60 times 60 times, perhaps, which means a lot. But not forever!!
Yes, yes, Gaudere. How many times must I explain that the punishment for original sin is not toil?? If the cares of this world so destroy your believe, I quite understand. But you are arguing ad hominem, really. Just because you do not love your fellow man, does not invalidate my argument.
Hah. I don’t know how you can say man’s inhumanity to man is better now or even equal now than it was then. Just because life is comfortable for you, you keep saying we are living in a world much better than before the fall.
No, I did read “Zen and the Art…” many years back. All I remember is:
a) Motorcyles are easy to repair
b) How he kept following two philosophers up two mountains and when they reached the summit, it was the same mountain.
I can relate. Debating both Libertarian and Gaudere is definitely working both sides of my brain.
I will be mostly Away From Keyboard for the next few weeks, but I will return to this discussion should there be any more points to make then.
I want an example–you can say it works wonderfully and perfect all you like, but unless you can actually show it working, what reason do you give us to believe you? I never intended to call you nuts, and I apologize if I came across that way. But simply saying “this is so” is not very convincing without evidence.
Most people think you possess what you are given, earn or make. You were not obviously given the whole earth by someone with the authority to do so, you did not earn it, you did not make it. Therefore it is not yours. As for the issue of the rich man’s silo, I would consider the moral obligation to preserve my life to override the rich man’s right to his grain, seeing as I have no alternative besides steal or die. However, not all feel this way, and some would indeed die rather than steal.
Evidence, evidence, evidence. When did we agree it did not exist on this scale? There were fewer people back then, so war and murder were less frequent simply due to less people being around. But 1% murders out of 1,000,000 people is 10,000 murders. 1% murders out of 1,000 people is 10 murders. But you cannot say that the degree of inhumanity has increased just because the overall number has. If you offer evidence that man’s inhumanity has increased beyond a simple increase due to larger numbers of people, I will listen–but you have not done so yet.
I agree with you that a desire for possessions can cause evil, particularly when one desires possessions so much that one will trample others to get to them. However, you do not need to hurt others to desire and pusrue possession. Desire for possessions can also cause good, if pursued honestly. Owners of big businesses want their own profits, yes, but they also provide jobs, and therefore food, for millions who would starve if they had to attempt to live off the land. Just because a company created a drug for profit, that does not mean it will not cure the disease it is intended to. I agree it would be great if everyone worked out of love of others, rather than self interest–but I think it unlikely that a person will ever care the same for someone halfway across the world as they care for their own children.
I think we have adapted to a new circumstance (technology, agriculture) that allows a vast population, and a large population has both advantages and disadvantages. I think your solution is impractical on any but a fairly small scale–people may allow their neighbor to take their spear, but not some stranger. The problem with communist and socialist communities seems to come when your goods go, not to your neighbor or your family or your friend, but to some total stranger. People are understandably resistant to this, particularly when it has harmful effects upon their own family. To change this seems highly unlikely.
I am saying that wholly unselfish people are easily dominated by selfish people, unless the unselfish people are willing to protect what they have. This domination seems like it would put the wholly unselfish people at a severe disadvantage, possibly leading to their eradication, if no one will protect them. It seems a reasonable statement, based on human nature and the nature of power. Can you refute it with reasons why your method would succeed? Simply quoting the Bible may give you spiritual authority, but it does not prove that things will necessarily come to pass in that way unless you assume the inerrancy of your interpretation of the Bible.
As I have pointed out before, any system will work wonderfully if the people are perfect. However, if you’re going to put it into application, I would say you have to take into account non-perfect people, and the overall practicality of using these means to achieve your ends.
Well, I find this juxtaposition of statements amusing. Thank you for informing me I do not love my fellow man.
You are the one who is claiming it is so much worse. I would prefer it if you would give reasons why.
Outside of giving you my word, I can not provide any further evidence. Were you to have faith in j.c’s teaching yourself, and obey them, in time the kingdom would be revealed to you. I mean, if we were two chemists and I performed an experiment, and called you up and said – when I mixed A and B I got C, how can I prove this to you? I can eiter ask you to mix A and B and get C yourself, or, I could have you come and watch me repeat the experiment. Were I willing to do so, I don’t think having you follow me around with a clipboard would not bias this particular experiment (o, her? No, no, she’s just from the Straight Dope… don’t mind her!). So, if you are a Doubting Thomas, stick your finger in Christ’s wounds. If you don’t wish to apply the scientific method to this youself, what can I do about it?
No offence Gaudere, but you sound like someone insisting the world is flat. I can tell you I have sailed around it, but unless you sail around it yourself, you will not believe anyone who tells you otherwise. And I imagine you are not willing to do so. I am at a loss as to how to reason with you further. If someone wants to insist the world is flat, I can not debate with them about the meander of the orbit of the Earth around the sun. If they would like to agree for the purposes of the discussion that the world is indeed round and allow extrapolation from there, we could still have a good debate.
You seem to be missing the forest for the trees. You can’t make something out of nothing. So you possess what you are given. But by what authority did the giver have it to begin with? Ah, someone gave it to them. You see this is circular reasoning.
I would love for you to show me these persons who would die surrounded by food! But is it really stealing? By what authority does the rich man own the grain to begin with?
Oh, and I just thought of an example where Jesus did not in fact respect the property rights of others – when he overturned the tables of the money-changers. So there you go, Libertarian, I found an example.
But why, Gaudere, why would they murder? For what possible reason. Don’t murders per capita decrease as one moves up the economic scale? So, why then would one murder for in what they would consider the land of plenty (despite the lack of space going vessels)? Og has killed a buffalo and won’t share? Screw it. Go out and kill yourself another buffalo. Or leave Og entirely and go find some people who share. Under what twisted circumstances dancing in your head do you see Perry killing Og? I gave you an example of after the fall, please give me an example for before the fall. Simply saying “it has always been such” does not cut it with me.
I can’t argue a negative here. I already gave an example with the story of Cain and Abel of how the tendancy to murder would be increased simply because people were tied down and trapped to the land they had and might grow jealous of their neighbor’s land, and perhaps even kill their neighbor for it. I also pointed out that with a food shortage, one man could force another to be his slave if he controlled the food and the other did not. Please provide a counter example of how man’s inhumanity to man would be on the same scale (although you seem not to know what a scale is – looking at a map might help) in a pre-fall society. Thanks.
Yep.
I thought coveting thy neighbor’s property was wrong, last I checked. But now you postulate that this is morally acceptable. But I can work around this. So how does Cain get Abel’s property? He can either kill him, which I agree with you he does not have to do, or he can enslave himself to Abel. But is Abel going to reward him justly? Perhaps. But Cain is still a slave which in and of itself is punishment enough IMHO.
Sure, Cain may cause good in the course of being Abel’s slave, but how is this good for Cain?
So now you are channeling Jefferson Davis? “Owners of big plantations want their own profits but they also provide something to do for these slaves who would otherwise just be milling about causing a ruckus.” Therefore, slavery is a good thing. Well, if you are Jefferson Davis or a plantation owner, I guess it is. But would you say these people had love in their hearts?
But all businesses aren’t farms, Gaudere. Businesses, believe it or not, are engaged in a whole wide world of endevours. Please explain how these other businesses provide food – I am completely mystified.
But I don’t understand you at all. I mean the food is already out there. How would the work of these people at a non-food growing business affect the amount of food?
But what does that have to do with anything? A cure for a disease is a good thing. What does that have to do with anything?
Ah, but they only think they are working for their own self interest. See, you can serve you own self interest, by refusing to be a slave, and love your fellow man at the same time, by showing them the way into the kingdom. That is the beauty of it!!!
Why have your children grow up to be slaves, though? I don’t think that is a very loving thing to do.
You go on a bit about how most people believe it is wrong to be kind to strangers, thus the Kingdom can not work on a large scale. But everyone one has been a stranger at some point, and we all know the importance the kindness of strangers has had in our lives. I don’t know why you would not reciprocate.
Ah. You seem to think that xtians are the submissive ones, even when they are the ones who are truly free! Yes, you must forgive you brother. How many times? I forget. But sooner or later, you must say enough is enough. To say enough is enough is not selfish, but is as dictated by the teachings of Christ (see the OP ). Thus there is protection. So where is your argument?
look, when you have nothing you have nothing to lose. I admit, without the spiritual dimension, death would bother you a bit and there have been martyrs from time to time. But, again, if you love your neighbor, I would think you would be willing to die for them.
But, these are not the dark ages anymore. Not here in the U.S. Sure, in China you’d be taken out and shot for being an xtian. But heck, they shoot people for all kinds of reasons over there. We live in a free country, and a prosperous one. If the Pope decides he wants the church dead (see Inquisition, French), he can’t call up the King of America and make it so. There is minor nagging persectution, but nothing you can’t just shrug off.
The church has gone I think too underground since that inquisition. It has been 900 years already, for crying out loud. The general believe is that God touches all hearts with love and if people refuse to listen to the love which is in their heart, no sense in sticking your neck out for them. Jesus was an only son for you, as they say. I disagree – I mean there are so many false Christ’s out there these days that so many people are just plain mislead. If God touches their hearts one way and the Devil touches their hearts another way, people can get confused mighty quick. If you can not use wisdom to open people’s eyes, why was there a Jesus at all? (You’d argue this on street corners and turn a few heads mind you Makes for nice guerilla theater!).
OK, but I’m not going to tie my own noose for you Gaudere. If we can assume the kingdom exists, and can grow (although, unfortunately I think it is fairly stagnant these days – times being what they are) then where do you see the point where the system will break down? I mean, Abel may say to Cain – if you will not be my slave, you can starve for all I care. Abel can just kill Cain (man, I’ve warped this fairly tale, haven’t I?), although it seems hardly worth his effort (and Cain here represents an idea – you can kill an idea). Abel can’t eat all the food in the field anyway. Abel can either give Cain food or Cain can just take it (well, we are still working that out if that is OK). And one day, Abel wakes up and says – why the heck am I doing all the work while Cain just sits around all day talking to himself about whether I have any love in my heart? What is he getting at? And perhaps Abel declares – fine. This is not my field anymore, this is God’s field. Cain, work it with me. And every one lives happily ever after. Counter example?
If you ar perfect, nonperfect people are your slaves, not the other way around. See above.
Sorry, but that did seem to be the basis of your flawed argument.
Do you even know what a newspaper is, woman?? AARRRGGG!!!
So, if I gave you my word that there was a perfect society that still had the concept of possession, would you accept that? Honestly, I really want more backing than your statement that this solution is plausible on a large scale. How can we debate if I must simply accept whatever statement you make, and your will not give evidence when I question?
I am not insisting that the world is flat. I am saying, “please, give me some reason besides simply that you have said so as to why I should believe 1) there was no property before “the fall”, 2) your solution is viable and will not be sidelined by “imperfect” people and 3) things were so much better for everyone before the fall.” I am willing to listen to you–but I need some evidence. If someone came on this board and believed the earth was flat, we would be able to provide evidence that it was so. If he rejected that evidence, that’s one thing, but I do not expect anyone to believe something simply because I say so, and if they ask for reasons I will provide them.
He toiled to produce the grain.
Before the fall they could have been jealous of their tribemate’s lover, or status. Then murder can result. And I would still like some evidence that the art and specialized tools were not the “possession” of someone. Things that we spend a lot of time creating with our own time and resources are considered our possessions today. Even animals exhibit covetous behavior. Why would early man be so different both from beast and modern man?
There were no food shortages before the fall? Or course there were, unless you are positing that the food was always availiable at all times, which I think is unreasobale given Nature’s capriciousness. Then one man could force another to be his slave before the fall too.
The selfish will have much greater resources, and will be able to take what they want. All it takes is one bad year where the selfish take the food from the unselfish and the unselfish starve. Will the unselfish let them take it, or will they refuse? If they refuse, will they kill to preserve their lives and the lives of their children?
Abel can have Cain arrested for eating his grain, he does not need to kill him.
Perry is jealous because Og is a better hunter. Perry just cannot seem to hunt as well, and Og is praised highly by the tribe since his efforts result in more food for all. If Og is dead, Perry is the best hunter, and gets the praise. So Perry kills Og. Or: The woman Perry loves loves Og. Perry thinks if Og is gone, the woman will love him instead. So Perry kills Og.
What is wrong with desiring something someone has, as long as you do not harm them to aquire it? I desire the catalope Og has. I make a spearhead. I want the cantalope more than I want the spearhead. Og wants the spearhead more than he want the cantalope. We trade. Both of us are happy.
Why are these people comparable to slaves? They work because they choose to, because they want the money they will get by doing so. [Jesus, I’m starting to sound like Libertarian. ]
True; they provide beds and medicine and cars and computers. Is that a bad thing?
I simply think that if your tribe has worked many years to build a spaceship to save your children, you would be unlikely to let Tribe B have it.
Yes, and because of the newspaper, we know much more about the ills that plague us now than we could have known about 12000 years ago. This is why I am hesitant to accept your claims that things were so much better back then.
I am, honestly, getting somewhat irritated with your attitude towards me. I have tried to be respectful; I asked questions, tried to understand what you mean, and you tend to respond by mocking me. I do not enjoy it, and I am not so involved in this debate that I cannot abandon it if I do not think it worth my while. I agree with many of your points, I simply question the actual likelyhood that it will be effective for doing what you intend it to do, and I would like a little more evidence than just your word.
Hey, you’ve never lied to me before. But seriously, I’ve provided you with an experiment you can perform to find the Kingdom – go sell all that you have, give the money to the poor, leave your friends and family, allow 4 to 6 weeks for shipping and handling, seek and ye shall find. Your understandable refusal to run such an experiment yourself does not invalidate my own experimental results.
If I tell you that if you mix chemicals A and B together the solution turns purple, you can pretty much disagree with me as long as you want. I can’t make you go out, get A and B, and mix them together yourself, right? But if you want to agree to disagree as to whether the Kingdom exists, that’s fine.
Well, that is basically impossible. But by way of example, I would hope we can agree that people did not use money before the fall, no? The use of shiny rocks as a medium of exchange must have had an impetus of some sort, and I would say that, while pre-fall man may have had what we might agree on calling a rudimentary concept of property, the introduction of money implies a more complex and robust propertied system was required.
Now hang on. This certaintly isn’t my solution. This is Jesus the Nazarene’s solution. There’s even an associated religion called Christianity – perhaps you have heard of it ;). I suppose Jesus was overly optimistic to some extent as far as the material realm goes and man’s imperfections – it has been 2K years and if anything mankind overall has gotten worse. But in regards to the spiritual realm, eternal life and all that, that can’t be sidelined by imperfect people ultimately. As far as viability, we can’t agree as to whether there exist any practicing Christians right now, so I doubt we can agree if they have been around since j.c.'s time – if that is what you mean by viable.
Is an ad nuclearum argument permitted? I mean, there are a few hundred people out there that can push a button and wipe out life as we know it on the planet. Is that a bad thing? I guess it doesn’t affect my quality of life at the current time, but the potential of getting a really bad mors ab alto didn’t exist circa 10000 B.C. OTOH, if your life revolves around the Nintendo 64, hey, things are way better now. But hey, technology is a double edged sword.
So setting aside technology for a moment, what else do we have. Well over a billion people, let’s say one out of four people, living as basically slaves to the state in so much as they can not quit their jobs if they wanted to. Well, I guess that only applies to the men in those countries (sexism, you will agree) but I’m sure the spread of American culture will take care of that. Let’s say one out of seven people instead. But maybe there is nothing really bad about that either.
Then there are the war zones and the widescale ethnic clensing in various corners of the globe. But, maybe as a percentage of people being killed verses the population the numbers are not changing drastically. My grandfather certaintly killed his fair share of Japanese back in WWII, and having been at the Battle of Pearl Harbor he probably did so with a vengeance. But for people on both sides it was an either kill or be killed\imprisoned – there wasn’t an underlying jealousy at play. Can you see how man’s bondage might escalate things? Someone who might otherwise be lukewarm regarding murder can be put in a position where someone who is pro-murder can force him to kill, and this can be done on a grand scale. But maybe it was always thus, beats me.
Anyway, this whole side of the argument wasn’t the one I was prepared to make, really. I mean, this is a tenet of Roman Catholic belief among others, and the are only like a billion of them, so you would think someone would hop on board and help me out. It basically comes down to whether man is basically good or not. I mean, if David B. is a better moderator than you are, are you going to run out and kill David B? :eek: I hope not!
You point out that even animals exhibit covetous behavior. Fine, OK. If you think man is no better than an animal, and is incapable of rationality that is your opinion and I can’t argue with you. If it is really true the man’s covetous behavior may very well lead to his doom, as Jesus believed and I agree, you are still going to have people like me who just don’t give a darn.
Right, right. But it wasn’t an ongoing thing. Systematic. For 10,000 odd years.
I can’t argue with the tenet that man is basically evil. I myself am basically evil – why would anyone else be any different?
So, Abel can take Cain and lock him up somewhere. I suppose Abel would still have to feed him though – or Cain is dead one way or the other. So why wouldn’t Abel just kill Cain? It doesn’t make sense to waste food on him – this seems even more not worth his effort.
Right, right, You are arguing again that man is basically evil. If I were David B, I’d watch my back when you are around though!
So, it is OK to covet your neighbor’s property as long as they covet yours too. Huh. If that is your morality. What about spouse swapping, is that OK too? I mean I have no problem with that sort of thing. I mean if you need something, that is one thing, but if you want something just to have it, both Judais and xtianity teach that is wrong.
Well, yes, you can choose not to work for money if you don’t want to. However, not everyone realizes this – and people who don’t work for money are generally frowned upon. Many socialist societies imprison people who refuse to work for Caesar in whatever form. And buying into the system does harm those who have not bought into the system when the system is hostile to those who have not bought in (or have litterally sold out).
No. But you said these businesses cause people not to starve somehow. (“Owners of big businesses want their own profits, yes, but they also provide jobs, and therefore food”) Are they supposed to eat the cars?
Sorry if I have come off as rude or mocking – I have only the deepest respect for you as a person so please don’t take my debate style personally.
I basically agree that on the material/historical level, xtianity has been a collosal failure up to this point. I have to think that the more xtians in the world, the better off humanity would be. Having to build a spaceship 2 billion years from now when the sun goes nova is an interesting point, but I think this is a real stretch to argue that it has any current relevance to mankind’s survival.
No, he threw some seeds in the ground maybe, and the seed and fertile soil produced the grain. Let’s say he was just going to let the grain rot in the silo anyway – would it be wrong to eat it then?
. Well, the passage I was looking for goes “Worry not where you shall sleep or what you shall eat…” but danged if I can find it.
Thank you for informing me I do not love my fellow man.