What causes muslims to be violent

[Belinda]

No. But Christ is clearly not talking about something like redistributive economics or so-called "equality." In fact, he's not talking about policies directly for present-day application by human beings in their routine transactions at all. That much is clear.

And cannot you adapt his knowledge and wisdom to present day usage?

I take Him at his word. This world lasts only for awhile. The Kingdom of Heaven is eternal.

Where's the smart investment?

If I could not do so I'd regard Jesus as an ephemeral preacher.

"Ephemeral"? Obviously, there's no word so inapplicable here.

But the local and historical Palestine specifics of scale and politics which of Jesus was aware were ephemeral. What lasted of the wisdom of Jesus was the theme of fair distribution it matters not if you use modern jargon the theme is the same.

Perhaps you are so irredemiably literal -minded you don't know what a theme is. I wish you did but heigh ho.

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:

yes, we block natural monopolies while encouragin' the artificial kind: a madness that comes from state capitalism bein' mated to large government

I think corruption among the ruling classes is worse when the government is large. I don't know if that is exactly what you mean.For instance, in the USA I imagine there would be less corruption if the separate States were more autonomous, as the dealings would be more open to public scrutiny. is that what you mean?

nope

[Belinda]

Fair distribution of goods...

Exactly what does "fair" distribution of goods mean?

Does it mean everybody gets the same amount, so that people who work get the same as those who don't, those who are honest get the same as those who steal, those who are dull, unimaginative or stupid get the same as those who are witty, clever and inventive, those who add value to the economy or other people's lives get the same as those who are selfish and provincial?

Does it mean a brain surgeon makes the same as a street cleaner?

Does it mean that those who work 60-hour weeks and make sacrifices get the same as those who work 30-hour weeks and are self-indulgent instead?

Does it means we keep giving money to people until they stop complaining and whining, or does it mean we teach people "You are already very blessed; be thankful for what you've got"?

What does it mean, B? Since you say it's so essential, so moral and so necessary, shouldn't you also be able to say what it is?

I hardly need to say it; you said it

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

yes, we block natural monopolies while encouragin' the artificial kind: a madness that comes from state capitalism bein' mated to large government

I think corruption among the ruling classes is worse when the government is large. I don't know if that is exactly what you mean.For instance, in the USA I imagine there would be less corruption if the separate States were more autonomous, as the dealings would be more open to public scrutiny. is that what you mean?

nope

you often answer more positively.

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:



I think corruption among the ruling classes is worse when the government is large. I don't know if that is exactly what you mean.For instance, in the USA I imagine there would be less corruption if the separate States were more autonomous, as the dealings would be more open to public scrutiny. is that what you mean?

nope

you often answer more positively.

no, I answer more fully: you make me tired and uncommunicative...an endless merry-go-round with you, and folks like you...I don't feel like playin' today...I'm sure you, and others, feel the same, about me, from time to time

[Immanuel Can]

But the local and historical Palestine specifics of scale and politics which of Jesus was aware were ephemeral.

Interesting.

The Bible says He knew His own future, the future of others, and even what was in human hearts. I would therefore be quite astonished if you knew what He was "aware of." Again, "ephemeral" seems the very least apt word.

What lasted of the wisdom of Jesus was the theme of fair distribution

Interesting.

He never complained of social unfairness, never overthrew the tyrannical Roman state, never started a political movement, never redistributed people's possessions, and told people to be content with what God had given them. He lived in poverty Himself, as did His followers, and had "nowhere to lay His head."

But what you got out of all that is that he was campaigning for Socialist redistribution?

[Immanuel Can]

Fair distribution of goods...

Exactly what does "fair" distribution of goods mean?

Does it mean everybody gets the same amount, so that people who work get the same as those who don't, those who are honest get the same as those who steal, those who are dull, unimaginative or stupid get the same as those who are witty, clever and inventive, those who add value to the economy or other people's lives get the same as those who are selfish and provincial?

Does it mean a brain surgeon makes the same as a street cleaner?

Does it mean that those who work 60-hour weeks and make sacrifices get the same as those who work 30-hour weeks and are self-indulgent instead?

Does it means we keep giving money to people until they stop complaining and whining, or does it mean we teach people "You are already very blessed; be thankful for what you've got"?

What does it mean, B? Since you say it's so essential, so moral and so necessary, shouldn't you also be able to say what it is?

I hardly need to say it; you said it

So you think "fair" is that everybody gets the same, regardless of any deserving?

Really?

That's the very definition of most people's "unfair."

[Belinda]

Exactly what does "fair" distribution of goods mean?

Does it mean everybody gets the same amount, so that people who work get the same as those who don't, those who are honest get the same as those who steal, those who are dull, unimaginative or stupid get the same as those who are witty, clever and inventive, those who add value to the economy or other people's lives get the same as those who are selfish and provincial?

Does it mean a brain surgeon makes the same as a street cleaner?

Does it mean that those who work 60-hour weeks and make sacrifices get the same as those who work 30-hour weeks and are self-indulgent instead?

Does it means we keep giving money to people until they stop complaining and whining, or does it mean we teach people "You are already very blessed; be thankful for what you've got"?

What does it mean, B? Since you say it's so essential, so moral and so necessary, shouldn't you also be able to say what it is?

I hardly need to say it; you said it

So you think "fair" is that everybody gets the same, regardless of any deserving?

Really?

That's the very definition of most people's "unfair."

I'd add temporary and ad hoc incentives when important industries and services were under- staffed. This might mean that for instance training to be a doctor or lawyer which need a lot of forward planning is incentivised by higher pay for those and other such professions. Id also add extra incentives as danger money for necessary industries or services.
Deserving has nothing to do with economics. I suppose you would separate poor people into "deserving poor" and undeserving poor".

[Immanuel Can]

So you think "fair" is that everybody gets the same, regardless of any deserving?

Really?

That's the very definition of most people's "unfair."

I'd add temporary and ad hoc incentives when important industries and services were under- staffed. This might mean that for instance training to be a doctor or lawyer which need a lot of forward planning is incentivised by higher pay for those and other such professions. Id also add extra incentives as danger money for necessary industries or services.

Why? That's now "unfair," by your definition.

You see how absurd Socialism is. It can't even manage something like the basic provision of doctors or workers for dangerous industries except by violating the principle of total equality. No wonder every Socialist economy comes to disaster.

Deserving has nothing to do with economics.

Then why do you care so much about economics? Nobody deserves anything, then.

I suppose you would separate poor people into "deserving poor" and undeserving poor".

Would I make a distinction between criminals and the law-abiding? Yes.
Would I make a distinction between the industrious and the indolent? Yes.
Would I make a distinction between people who provide essential or dangerous services, and those who don't? Sure.
Would I reward achievers? Absolutely.
Would would I distinguish between the wise and the foolish, the honest and the dishonest, the kind and the vicious? Wouldn't you?

But you see, B., I don't actually "make" those distinctions. They exist. They're real. It's the Socialists who want us to believe they don't exist. They want to "unmake" the truth, and pretend everyone's the same. At the same time, they can't explain a single sense in which their claim of blanket equality is true.

People are different in every single metric you can pick...save one, which is the one metric you'll never pick.

[Belinda]

So you think "fair" is that everybody gets the same, regardless of any deserving?

Really?

That's the very definition of most people's "unfair."

I'd add temporary and ad hoc incentives when important industries and services were under- staffed. This might mean that for instance training to be a doctor or lawyer which need a lot of forward planning is incentivised by higher pay for those and other such professions. Id also add extra incentives as danger money for necessary industries or services.

Why? That's now "unfair," by your definition.

You see how absurd Socialism is. It can't even manage something like the basic provision of doctors or workers for dangerous industries except by violating the principle of total equality. No wonder every Socialist economy comes to disaster.

Deserving has nothing to do with economics.

Then why do you care so much about economics? Nobody deserves anything, then.

I suppose you would separate poor people into "deserving poor" and undeserving poor".

Would I make a distinction between criminals and the law-abiding? Yes.
Would I make a distinction between the industrious and the indolent? Yes.
Would I make a distinction between people who provide essential or dangerous services, and those who don't? Sure.
Would I reward achievers? Absolutely.
Would would I distinguish between the wise and the foolish, the honest and the dishonest, the kind and the vicious? Wouldn't you?

But you see, B., I don't actually "make" those distinctions. They exist. They're real. It's the Socialists who want us to believe they don't exist. They want to "unmake" the truth, and pretend everyone's the same. At the same time, they can't explain a single sense in which their claim of blanket equality is true.

People are different in every single metric you can pick...save one, which is the one metric you'll never pick.

There is no principle of total equality or "blanket equality". This is not the Kingdom of Heaven.
It is always easier to perceive evil than to perceive good. Good is recognised by comparative absence of evil. So what I mean by evil is wealth that is reward for nothing more than making profits for shareholders. And it is easy to despise great wealth that has not been earned but inherited.
The foolish are not in much demand as employees so they already have that incentive to be wiser.
Certainly criminals should be brought to justice.The dishonest are criminals.
Achievers are various. Some achievers are borderline criminals . Some morally great achievers go unrewarded.

Vicious people are always going to be a drain on society. They have to be fed and housed despite their sins and crimes.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no principle of total equality or "blanket equality". This is not the Kingdom of Heaven.

That being so, your Socialist goal is, by definition, "unprincipled."

It is always easier to perceive evil than to perceive good.

That's because there's often a bigger event when it happens.

Good is recognised by comparative absence of evil.

It's the opposite. Evil is the corruption or destruction of the good.

So what I mean by evil is wealth that is reward for nothing more than making profits for shareholders.

Why? If you know what a "shareholder" is, it's somebody who's given up some of his money on speculation that it can be made into more. He's taken a risk that others will not, and has not indulged himself in using that money for other things when he might have. Having taken a risk, why is he not eligible for any reward?

That seems pretty counterintuitive...and as policy, would certainly cripple the economy. No one would want to invest in shares of anyone else's business, and businesses would collapse from lack of liquidity.

Do you want to see human misery accelerate?

And it is easy to despise great wealth that has not been earned but inherited.

Too easy. Facile, even.

Most wealth is generated, not inherited. Socialism prevents the generation of wealth.

The foolish are not in much demand as employees so they already have that incentive to be wiser.

Heh. You don't understand Socialism. Under Socialism, there is no such thing as "demand." There is only what the government "commands."

Businesses under Socialism have no power to select their employees. They have to take anybody The Party gives them...and everybody must be employed, regardless of their skills, their industry or their performance.

Vicious people are always going to be a drain on society. They have to be fed and housed despite their sins and crimes.

Fed and housed? Of course. Not abused? Of course. But why do you want to reward them financially, exactly as much as you want to see come to the kind, industrious and charitable people? Do you want a society full of vicious people?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Good is recognised by comparative absence of evil.

It's the opposite. Evil is the corruption or destruction of the good.

Yes I think so. But we find it easier to recognise evil when it happens. I don't know why. You see it in the media. Evil sells better than good.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Good is recognised by comparative absence of evil.

It's the opposite. Evil is the corruption or destruction of the good.

Yes I think so. But we find it easier to recognise evil when it happens. I don't know why. You see it in the media. Evil sells better than good.

All humans are "programmed" to give greater weightage and attention to evil because of its potential to fatality and hinderances to one's survival. Thus the saying 'bad news' is 'good news' to the profit-driven media.
The motivation leverage to avoid evil is pain.
A person can die instantly & immediately from what is evil but not immediately from what is good.

[gaffo]

Genesis obviously does. It tells us what animals were created for.

ok tell me more.

What interests you?

many things, since you have asked an honest question shall answer.

in order of importance? or not? - not sure - some days the order does shift. so lets go with a simple list of no order.

becoming wise - or at least more wise than i am today. i.e. wiser than i am now.

living a contented life, maybe not happy nor fullfilled (those are both bars higher than the contentment - I would be happy enough with the lower bar contentment - if i find happyness and fullfillment also, well great!

Religious Dogmas. from Eastern to Western Religions.

History

Politics

-religious dogma and politics both tie into history, so all three are in a way of the same nature - i have an interest in all three. esp the evolution of Religous Dogma via history. - first Judaism was polytheistic, then finally - via denial of prior Gods they affirmed pror to the destruction of the 1st Temple, evolved (via politics of the time - return from exile via Ezra - post 587 BC) to "no other Gods but YHWH, after the Persians allowed Ezra and Zak to emigrate to Judea.

Gardening - siting out on my back porch, and growing food in the yard, connects me with the Earth, and is my primary form of Meditatation.

Computers, self learned PCs from the early 90's - including Linux slackware 2.0, and OS/2 Warp (best OS EVER! - at least "EVER via early 90's" - but IBM was an idiot and did not promote the better alternative to Wondoze, so "if you don't promote, you become remote" (to reference what's his name in the OJ trial (OJ of course killed his wife, and Ferman/or whomever was there - likely planted the clove (the concept of guilt is not tied to cops rigging the crime scene) - OJ killed his wife, the cops planted evidence - both wrong, of course the former is the greater wrong.) - and no the jury verdict was not jury nullification, for it to be that then the charge Murder, would be the question to the jury, that jury just suffered from binary thinking, they thought the police planted evidence (I do to BTW - 75/25), but being dumb equated that with OJ is innocent!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO! - I'm not dumb, cops planted evidence because they acted as the jury at the time, then planted the "Evidence" to secure a conviction, but it backfired! due to Juries binary thinking- and Vore Dire (which should be illegal) - = jury tampering = sheep = dumbshits on the jury.

should be no vore dire, and just a random draw of neighers for all court cases.

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

ok, kinda drunk now, and forget the point of your post and am rambaling. let me have 4 more beers and a few more hours to reply to the rest of your post.

---------

BTW you have a mind and a heart and so not "veg" - and so you and i have no problem with agreeing or dissagreeing, and even welcome the latter, when later in life one refects upon the point and concurs. - this had happened to me via the now log dead forum bible-discussions, where at the time i was wrong, but sure i was write, then an other poster provided a point i never considered.

i miss that forum, many good and wise folks we lost when that forum went dark in 2017.

-let me drink some more, before i reply to the rest of your reply to me.

thanks for reply BTW!

[gaffo]

no so drunk yet, and not hours later, but wish to post reply to your below - you make important points.


I think the main point from 2 weeks ago as that i do not think Western Religions take into account animals' nature (they are just plants - souless).

but you make an important point below, and would like to address it.

One thing might be that God gave mankind the responsibility to name the animals.

yes! Tetragrammaton!!!!!! is why YHWH gave Adam the power to name all the other animals (YHWH presented them before Adam, and Adam named them).

to know the true name of something is to have power over it! - via the theology of archaic Judiasm (the form of Judaism when the work - Genesis - was written. and why the jews of that time were never to speak the word YHWH orally., and why when Moses was told by YHWH when he asked "what is your name" - to pound sand, via just know that "I Am that i am". And why Jesus in Gospel of Mark commanded the Legion to "Be silent" before the Demons could state Jesus' "true name" - for to allow them to state it, would give them power of jesus.

You don't name something you're setting out to destroy.

none sequitor, the genesis story is all about knowing the True Name of things - from God to the animals, YHWH allowed Adam to "True name" the animals in genesis, in order to have power of the them.

Adam lost that power when he ate of the TOK, and thus the working with thorns bleeding your legs, pain in child birth.

Another might be that animals were created "good," as God says, so not something to be exploited or wiped out, and that mankind was made to be a steward of the Earth, not a destroyer of it.

the only animal that ate of the TOK was man, so all other animals remain sinless, but some become carnivores post fall of man - according to Jubaless, so man infected the nature of some animals - per the theology of Jubaless.

Even eastern religions are only practiced by humans. They teach us humans to be responsible for the tigers and monkeys; they never teach any tigers and monkeys to be responsible for us. And does any eastern religion teach fish and flowers to save humans?

no, but is that relevent? Eastern Religions do affirm that animals do have souls - so not rocks nor plants, and that if one is a human dick in this life will be reborn in an lower form of life, as say a frog. Eastern Religions leave it up to the frogs if they have their own religions. - if their relgions are good some will live a good life as frog and in the next life will be reborn as a higher animal - etc........... if not then the next stop is the worm and thier religions.

So eastern religions recognize that mankind is unique, and above animals, and responsible for what happens to them and to the environment.