| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Are Christians Moral? |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 12 2004, 03:04 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Are Christians Moral? Posted by: ~Josalo~ Jan 12 2004, 02:58 PM I found this and thought it might be of interest with all the morality talk going around, you can read what I pasted or simply http://www.satan2000.com/christians/moralx.htm Are Christians Really Moral? About every fifth e-mail I get from a Christian makes some reference to my subjective morals and how you can't have morality without their god. Let's explore this amusing thought, shall we? The First Point Imagine two men, we'll call them Chris and Albert. Albert gives a stranger a ride across town just because he feels like it or thinks it is the right thing to do. Chris gives a stranger a ride across town because the stranger has a gun and claims that he will blow Chris's brains out if he does not give the ride. Now, while we cannot say that Albert is a more moral person than Chris, we cannot say that Chris is more moral than Albert, either. Now, consider this: We can ask Chris what he would have done in Albert's situation. If Chris replies: "Why would I give a ride to some bum unless I had some motivation to do so?" then we can conclude that Albert is more moral than Chris. If Chris were forever being followed around by a gun-toting maniac who whispered in his ear exactly what he must do to avoid death, then Chris would forever be in a state of amorality. That is, nothing he did would ever have anything to do with his personal morality, unless he actually went against the gun-toting maniac in order to follow his own will. Imagine two women, Christy and Alicia. Christy is approached by Donald Trump on the street who tells her: "Look, see that old woman over there? I will pay you $1000 if you will go help her cross the street." In the meantime, Alicia (on another street corner somewhere else) sees an old woman about to cross the street who looks like she needs help and helps the woman. Who is more moral? We don't know. But if Christy says, "I would never have even considered helping that old woman if it hadn't been for the bribe I was given to do it," then we know that Alicia is the better person. A Christian goes through his/her entire life believing that God is keeping track of their good and bad actions, and even thoughts, so that when they die, he can either throw them into a lake of fire (the Big Punishment) or give them the Big Reward. Every action they take is as if a gun-toting maniac and a rich capitalist were manipulating them. Nothing they do can truly be "moral" and nothing can, according to what they believe to be real, be "immoral." They are existing simply to avoid the Big Punishment and win the Big Reward. The only way they could truly be moral is if God "told them" to do something wrong and they disobeyed, thus losing the Big Reward and making themselves deserving of the Big Punishment. Ironically, if everything they believed to be moral truly were moral, then they could never truly prove that they were moral! (Isn't this fun?) Furthermore, if anyone goes around behaving a certain way simply because some guy in a pulpit told them to do it, they are not moral: they are simply an extremely effective comformist. Morality requires that you know why you do something. Saying "that's what God says I should do" will not cut it, since in truth, God never told you anything. The Bible was written by people. The people who interpret it are people. That brings us to... The Second Point Every Christian on Earth seems to think that atheists and pagans and what-not have a completely subjective morality; that is, we can make up whatever we want to be right and wrong, and if the whim hits us, we can change our morality at will. To clarify this briefly: an atheist who has not thought through his/her moral values may have a completely subjective morality and may be able to change their stripes at any time. However, any atheist who has thought things over to any degree does have a relatively objective morality which cannot be changed at will. Pagans have very explicit ethical codes, and thus their morality is not subjective at all (unless they're some sort of self-styled, unofficial kind of pagan). (Atheists who have only recently rejected Christianity may indeed have a subjective morality, but I blame that on Christianity rather than atheism. Christianity teaches that there is no morality independent of the god, so when one rejects the existence of that god, previous training in Christian thought might convince the person that they have no moral code to live up to anymore. If Christians had been teaching real morality in the first place rather than a morality based on an imaginary being, this would not be a problem.) Now that it is clear that Christians can't ever prove that they are acting out of good morals rather than out of selfish motivation and that atheists and pagans are, for the most part, possessors of stable, objective moral values, what is it about Christianity that could possibly make its moral values better? Christians have this book they call "the Bible" and this book supposedly has all the moral values carefully spelled out. Of course, all non-Christians reading this know that using the Bible as one's source of moral guidance makes your morals completely subjective. The Bible is such a poorly written, culturally relevant, historically bound collection of metaphorical stories that it has to be interpreted. Interpretation involves several steps: Identify passages that say things consistent with what you think the Bible should say. For instance, if you want Jesus to rise from the dead, find a passage that says he did so; if you believe murder is wrong, find a passage that says so; if you believe it is OK to engage in bloody vengeance against your enemies, find a passage that says to do this. Develop a clear idea of the intentions and character of all of the key figures in the Bible, including God and Jesus, based on the passages you liked. Based on the good passages and your derived intentions and character, fill in any missing parts of the stories that are contained there and any missing parts of the metaphysical mechanisms described there. Use the above as evidence that the passages you did not like are not good passages and should be ignored. Also use the above to twist any ambiguous passages to fit the meaning that you think they should have. Finally, fit any remaining passages into the well-accepted scientific thought of your day. Dismiss any passages that clearly go against firmly established scientific fact as being too metaphorical or culturally bound for you to take them seriously. For those passages that you like but also go against science, be creative, but don't admit that the Bible is hogwash. For instance, claim that God created science and so scientists can be judged on how well their results reflect the content of the Bible; claim that Satan is intentionally leading scientists astray. Once your interpretation is done, start your own sect of Christianity. Claim that any groups that go against your major metaphysical points are going to hell. Use the wide acceptance of the smaller points of your interpretation as proof that you did your interpretting correctly. Jim Hill and Rand Cheadle have written an excellent book called The Bible Tells Me So: Uses and Abuses of Holy Scripture (New York: Doubleday. 1996) where they review some issues in which the Bible has been used to support both sides of the argument. Here is a list of things which can be supported depending on how you interpret the Bible: Slavery The abolishment of slavery Racism Racial tolerance Persecution of Jews Being nice to the Jews Keeping women in their place Supporting the liberation of women Providing sanctuary for political refugees Ill treatment of foreigners Killing witches Employing witches Marriage Lifelong celebacy Drinking alcohol Abstaining from alcohol Being good to your neighbor Killing your neighbor Not coveting your neighbor's wife Killing your neighbor so you can have his wife Justifying hatred of homosexuals Providing acceptance of homosexuals Persecution of Catholics Support of Catholicism Opposing medical science Embracing medical science Opposing war Justifying war Exploiting the environment Saving the environment Pro-Abortion Anti-Choice Because Christians can support any of these actions with the same book, I have to conclude that their morality is completely subjective. In Conclusion Atheists and pagans are the moral superiors of Christians if they have given any thought to what their values are. Posted by: PseudoGod Jan 12 2004, 03:16 PM This is an interesting essay I found once on this topic: I Am Not a Christian Because I Am a Moral Person by Daniel G. Jennings Since I am a highly moral person, many people assume that I am a Christian who goes to church. They are shocked to discover that I am a nonbeliever who hasn't set foot in a church in years. Believers ask how can I be a moral person if I don't believe or go to church. My response is simple: I don't believe and I don't go to church for the very reason that I am a moral person. As a highly ethical person, I believe many things are wrong: murder, wars of conquest, terrorism, sexism, rape, theft, armed robbery, bigotry, racism, etc. Yet when I read the Bible I see the Christian "God" either engaging in many of these things or blessing the people that do. The Book of Genesis, for example, teaches that it was a highly moral thing for Abraham to plan to stab his son to death because "God" had commanded it. Later on, "God's chosen people," the Jews, invade other people's countries, murder the populations, and steal their land and possessions. "God" even goes so far as to punish the Jewish King Saul for not destroying everything in an enemy country. If the "God" of the Bible were around in the world today he would be on the lists of major human-rights violators compiled by both the U.S. State Department and Amnesty International. So would many of the "good" and holy men of the Bible such as David, Moses, Saul, etc. Nor is the "God" of the New Testament much better. Although Jesus supposedly sacrificed himself for all of humanity and forgave all of humanity's sins by dying on the cross, we are clearly taught that only those who believe in Christianity will be saved; everyone else will be condemned to eternal damnation in hell. I can think of nothing more immoral than untold billions of otherwise innocent people condemned to eternal suffering simply because they did not accept a given theology. Many of the greatest and most moral human beings in history would be burning in hell because they weren't "Christians." Those condemned to hell would include Einstein, Socrates, Gandhi, Homer, Confucius, Virgil, Marcus Aurelius, Geronimo, etc. Meanwhile "wonderful" people such as Oliver Cromwell, Cortes, Pizzaro, Caesar Borgia, Al Capone, the Inquisitors, virtually all of Hitler's generals, and most of Stalin's henchmen would be enjoying eternal bliss in heaven because they were "Christians." If this weren't bad enough, in the book of Revelation "God" inflicts unimaginable suffering, cruelty, brutality and violence on humanity. "God" inflicts humanity with terrible plagues and lets Satan conquer the world. Satan then sets up a horrendously evil, cruel and oppressive dictatorship that imposes horrendous tyranny, suffering, cruelty and violence upon humanity. This is followed by a terrible war in which Jesus himself goes on a rampage and kills wantonly and brutally. This is the only future that the Bible tells us that we have to look forward. There is no way that I as a highly moral and ethical person could believe in a "God" who would behave in such a vicious, cruel, brutal and unethical way. If I were to start believing and worshiping such a "God," I would be endorsing and approving of his terrible and unethical behavior. I would be saying that it is all right to murder or inflict cruelty upon those who don't share my beliefs, all right to justify slavery and other such evils. In other words, I would have to put my morality aside and endorse many of the very things which I hate in order to become a believing Christian. To this I say "no way." If my values are to have any meaning at all, they must apply to everyone and everything--even "God." If "God" doesn't follow those values why should human beings? Worse, by going to church and claiming to believe I would make myself into a liar and a hypocrite since I not only believe that much of what is taught in the Bible is wrong, but I do not believe in the Christian "God." Thus, I would have to lie to myself and others in order to pass myself off as a Christian. I would have to become the worst kind of liar: a hypocrite. That is, I would have to demand that others believe in things that I do not. To that I say "no way"--my ethics and values give me no choice. If I want to be a moral and ethical person I cannot be a Christian. http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=290 Posted by: michelle Jan 12 2004, 03:39 PM I agree with everything in the last post AND I KNEW IT ALL ALONG! If only Christians knew that wearing a cross on your neck is embarrasing yourself. Posted by: PseudoGod Jan 12 2004, 03:56 PM Michelle, It's funny because I had a Xian friend of mine read that awhile back and his response was "this person obviously doesn't know anything about Christianity" and that "all killings are justified as punishment for the wicked". Ok, since people who don't believe in Xianity are judged as "wicked", it is ok to murder those who disagree with you......how deluded is that?? Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 12 2004, 04:39 PM QUOTE (PseudoGod @ Jan 12 2004, 06:56 PM) It's funny because I had a Xian friend of mine read that awhile back and his response was "this person obviously doesn't know anything about Christianity" and that "all killings are justified as punishment for the wicked". Ok, since people who don't believe in Xianity are judged as "wicked", it is ok to murder those who disagree with you......how deluded is that?? wow, sounds like a nazi sympathizer! Posted by: Farasha Jan 13 2004, 01:16 PM QUOTE "all killings are justified as punishment for the wicked". This is another thing that really bothers me about the bible, is how it always talks about the "righteous" and the "wicked", as if there's no in-between. Especially in Psalms, when you read about how the author is begging God to strangle the wicked, crush the wicked's bones, slay the wicked, entangle the wicked in a pit of vipers, etc. I don't know about you guys, but there aren't any people I know whom I would consider "wicked" and deserving of punishment. No matter which way you look at it, real life is different from how the Bible presents life to be. There are incredibly few truely "wicked" people (the exceptions, people like Hitler and Stalin, were very messed up in their heads). By the same token, how do you define someone as "righteous"? Those who claim to be righteous (most often, fundies) clearly aren't. All of humanity cannot simply be divided up into "wicked" and "righteous". In fact, to attempt to do so would be a great crime against humanity--the results of which include the Holocaust. Posted by: PseudoGod Jan 14 2004, 07:28 PM QUOTE (Farasha @ Jan 13 2004, 01:16 PM) No matter which way you look at it, real life is different from how the Bible presents life to be. Exactly! This is because God's system of justice is the complete opposite of the human system of justice. In the human system, you are innocent until you do something that makes you guilty (commit a crime). In God's system, you are guilty until you do something that makes you innocent (be saved). And thus, as in the human system there are no degrees of innocence, in the godly system there are no degrees of wickedness. You either are or you are not. The more I talk about this stuff the more I am convinced the Bible was written by primitive men who needed a potent weapon against their enemies. The Bible is it. Posted by: Davidium Jan 14 2004, 08:41 PM Are Christians moral? I think that is sortof the wrong question. Some are, and some are not. I think the right question to ask is "Are Christians any more or less moral than anyone else?" and the answer is, I think, no, they are just the same as everyone else.... Why? Because morality has nothing to do with religion. I have been on a quest for a long time to try and identify what morality really is. My own pondering went in many different directions, but someone recently pointed me to "What is Man?" by dear ole' Mark Twain, and you know, I think old sawbones hit it on the mark (no pun intended)... He said that every action a human takes in their life has the primary intention of satiating an internal need in himself. A person who commits good acts does so becasue he has a need for the feeling of goodness and self approval that those acts give him. A person who commits bad acts does so to satiate an inner drive, maybe revenge, or domination... etc. Sure, they may have other secondary reasons, but the primary one is satiating themselves. Now, Christians are just as human as the rest of us. They have the same inner drives. And so they act to satiate those drives, just like the rest of us. So, their religion plays only a secondary role, and a minor one at that. Davidium Posted by: Tocis Jan 15 2004, 01:01 AM QUOTE (Farasha @ Jan 13 2004, 01:16 PM) QUOTE "all killings are justified as punishment for the wicked". This is another thing that really bothers me about the bible, is how it always talks about the "righteous" and the "wicked", as if there's no in-between. Especially in Psalms, when you read about how the author is begging God to strangle the wicked, crush the wicked's bones, slay the wicked, entangle the wicked in a pit of vipers, etc. I don't know about you guys, but there aren't any people I know whom I would consider "wicked" and deserving of punishment. No matter which way you look at it, real life is different from how the Bible presents life to be. There are incredibly few truely "wicked" people (the exceptions, people like Hitler and Stalin, were very messed up in their heads). By the same token, how do you define someone as "righteous"? Those who claim to be righteous (most often, fundies) clearly aren't. All of humanity cannot simply be divided up into "wicked" and "righteous". In fact, to attempt to do so would be a great crime against humanity--the results of which include the Holocaust. And even bastards like Hitler and Stalin, from their points of view, were the good guys. I think we should never forget one thing when dealing with our fellow humans: There are no bad guys. Not if you ask them, that is. Everyone, in every situation, does what from his point of view is the best he can do. That's one of the best keys to understand human behavior. Take Hitler for example. We don't need to discuss if what he did was in any way okay, from our point of view... but in his twisted mind there was the noble Aryan master race, it was threatened by the Evil Jews ™, and getting rid of the Jews was the only way to in fact preserve human culture and civilization (as Hitler was convinced that all culture and civilization, always and everywhere, was a product of Aryan social construction working). I read "My struggle" in Summer '02 and in a way it's a very interesting book. You inevitably realize that from his point of view he was telling the eternal truth, and I guess that's what made him appear so convincing in public speeches. People just felt "He really means what he says". Because of this power of "sincerety" it's also a menace to every democratic nation of the world. I'd recommend it to those who are fully aware of the horror that his ideology spawned, and convinced of the necessity of human rights and democracy, but give this damned book to a, say, 14-year-old and he's LOST. Back to the original topic, I think this black-or-white, good-or-evil without any middle ground is childish. Whoever thinks like that shows he does not understand how the world works, and especially how human minds work. And some just don't want to understand this, because if they did they'd have to think about so many questions they could otherwise just settle the quick and easy way. Such a bipolar mindset is dangerously ignorant of reality. Posted by: Lokmer Jan 15 2004, 09:59 AM Hey, Tocis, FYI most people in English speaking countries will have no idea which book you are talking about, since over here it retains the German title "Mein Kampf". But you're right - as a writer one of the cardinal rules is that everybody is their own favorite good guy. Every character believes that what they are doing is the best they can do, even if they're uncomfortable with it. True sociopaths are very rare indeed. This is, I think, the reason that art and story are so basically liberalizing - it forces you to live life in the skin of another, and it may be a life of which you don't approve. Story, whether true or fiction, reminds us that we are all human - the central fact of our existence that culture, politics, religion, and fear try unendingly to hide from us. -Lokmer Posted by: Tocis Jan 15 2004, 10:23 AM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jan 15 2004, 09:59 AM) Hey, Tocis, FYI most people in English speaking countries will have no idea which book you are talking about, since over here it retains the German title "Mein Kampf". Interesting. Most references I found translated the title to "my struggle". Posted by: _jjacksonRIAB Jan 15 2004, 01:42 PM Lokmer: Most people in America don't even know really all that much about Hitler except for the propaganda that the government tells them in school. Most people wouldn't have even known of his influence on building the autobahn and the volkswagen car company, based on a committment the government made to give every German citizen their own vehicle. But yes, I have heard of his book Mein Kampf, "My struggle" and if you as the hypothetical American paid attention in history class, you probably would have heard of it too. I haven't read it yet, though it seems you never get the complete story when a biased government is in charge of telling it. You only get it if you take the time to dig around. That is not to say that Hitler wasn't a horrendous asshole, but he did some commendable things too, like not allowing Germany to be driven into the ground for insane reparations that were causing the people of Germany to starve worse than any third world country. Starting the machinery of war to escape the worst inflation Germany had ever known at the time seemed the best option in opposition to swearing fealty to a bunch of fuckheaded asstwats with their own ambitions for world conquest. What better way to say: "don't attempt world conquest" than to divide Germany amongst the victors? Fucking idiots. Governments suck. They cause problems that they bill themselves as the solution to, and you always end up paying for it. Germany should have had a private militia uprising the very moment the asshats in charge started speaking in an ambitious tone. They would have saved the German people and the Jews a lot of grief had they done so. When some government goon starts speaking ambitiously about something in another nation they do not have, they should have a round popped through their head. Twice for good measure. When are people going to learn that uncle Sam is not their savior or buddy? He's the drunk clownfuck that goes around provoking others, and sending you in to fight his battles for him. Posted by: ~Josalo~ Jan 15 2004, 04:42 PM Yes, morality has alot to do with religion. A christian will do something moral because he or she thinks "well, now I have a better chance to get into heaven". Posted by: Farasha Jan 15 2004, 08:44 PM QUOTE . A christian will do something moral because he or she thinks "well, now I have a better chance to get into heaven". They don't do it to get into heaven. They already know they're going there. Instead, they do it to feel like they're good Christians who are doing what God wants them to. Posted by: Lokmer Jan 15 2004, 08:58 PM QUOTE (_jjacksonRIAB @ Jan 15 2004, 01:42 PM) Most people in America don't even know really all that much about Hitler except for the propaganda that the government tells them in school. Most people wouldn't have even known of his influence on building the autobahn and the volkswagen car company, based on a committment the government made to give every German citizen their own vehicle. But yes, I have heard of his book Mein Kampf, "My struggle" and if you as the hypothetical American paid attention in history class, you probably would have heard of it too. I haven't read it yet, though it seems you never get the complete story when a biased government is in charge of telling it. You only get it if you take the time to dig around. Oh, I agree. But I'm not your average American I've not only heard of it, I've read pieces of it and have a copy laying around here somewhere - every adult should read it as some point - the things in there that are similar to what we hear coming out of Washington these days are pretty scary. Then again, many problems come about because people don't read history. Actually, most people don't read, period. Very sad. But if you look back over my posts you'll notice that I am not one of those that does not read -Lokmer Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 15 2004, 09:47 PM Mein Kampf is usually availible freely from most librarys. There is no government altercation. Hitler improved the economy. He came up with the autobahn and the original vw, but what's your point? The economy was good since everyone was at work, fighting everything else; War is good for an economy, period. The autobahn, like highways today, are convinient paths for the army; since we are not under martial law there is no need to close it for military only use. The VW was just a way to spread more aryan standardization. The problem is no one took hitler seriously when he originally wrote mein kampf. Everything is laid out right there. Murder of the jews, disruption of the Government, etc. By the time people realized the truth, he had already taken the government. There was a really good (good as in close to the truth) movie about hitler's rise to power. Don't recall the title though. "Es ist Die Juden. Sie sind die Ursache von Problemen des Vaterlandes. Sie Müßen für den Nutzen Deutschlands beseitigt werden." (It is the Jews. They are the cause of the problems of the Fatherland. They must be eliminated for the good of Germany.) - Mein Kampf Posted by: Tocis Jan 15 2004, 11:20 PM QUOTE (Farasha @ Jan 15 2004, 08:44 PM) QUOTE . A christian will do something moral because he or she thinks "well, now I have a better chance to get into heaven". They don't do it to get into heaven. They already know they're going there. Instead, they do it to feel like they're good Christians who are doing what God wants them to. Well, for the sake of fairness I have to point out that this is not valid for every christian in the world. I have been told, just as all the christians of the two main denominations in Germany, that your deeds are that matters, i. e. "once saved always saved" was not a thing I learned. Posted by: Tocis Jan 15 2004, 11:27 PM QUOTE (SpaceFalcon2001 @ Jan 15 2004, 09:47 PM) Mein Kampf is usually availible freely from most librarys. [...] The problem is no one took hitler seriously when he originally wrote mein kampf. I guess it's freely available everywhere in the world except in Germany. As far as I know one can get it in the library here, but he will have to agree to be added to a list of known readers... just in case. No other book with anti-democratic content is controlled so rigidly here, not even "Das Kapital". As for people having taken Hitler seriously, well, as he gave them hope in many ways, naturally at first no one wanted to think about the... umm... less nice things he said he planned. The human potential for self-deception... Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 16 2004, 11:03 PM QUOTE (Tocis @ Jan 16 2004, 02:27 AM) I guess it's freely available everywhere in the world except in Germany. As far as I know one can get it in the library here, but he will have to agree to be added to a list of known readers... just in case. No other book with anti-democratic content is controlled so rigidly here, not even "Das Kapital". I'm not very up on German law, but I don't need to tell you that it's not so much about the anti-democratic content as it is a basis of Nazi belief. Probbly easier to find a copy online, but getting caught could mean fines. You know how very anti-nazi anything Germany is, not having a freedom of speech law as in the US. Close to Kiel or Bremen Tocis? Posted by: Tocis Jan 16 2004, 11:25 PM QUOTE (SpaceFalcon2001 @ Jan 16 2004, 11:03 PM) I'm not very up on German law, but I don't need to tell you that it's not so much about the anti-democratic content as it is a basis of Nazi belief. Probbly easier to find a copy online, but getting caught could mean fines. You know how very anti-nazi anything Germany is, not having a freedom of speech law as in the US. Close to Kiel or Bremen Tocis? I got my digital copy from an acquantance who found it online As for freedom of speech, in theory of course we are allowed to express our opinions - but talking about Hitler in public without a very careful choice of words will make the authorities wonder if you want to spread pro-Nazi propaganda. I'd have to look it up on a road map, but my estimate is about 200 - 250 km from Hildesheim to Kiel or Bremen. Heck with it, I'll check 130 km to Bremen, 240 to Kiel. Sometimes I confuse Bremen with Bremerhaven which is a bit further. Posted by: Farasha Jan 16 2004, 11:36 PM QUOTE No other book with anti-democratic content is controlled so rigidly here, not even "Das Kapital". I've always wanted to read Capital, or at least the first volume....anyone here read it? Posted by: Tocis Jan 17 2004, 12:22 AM QUOTE (Farasha @ Jan 16 2004, 11:36 PM) QUOTE No other book with anti-democratic content is controlled so rigidly here, not even "Das Kapital". I've always wanted to read Capital, or at least the first volume....anyone here read it? I've tried, but it beat me. I guess an in-depth explanation about quantum and relativity theory is easier to read than Marx. I didn't even get through all the definitions... ...guess that's why what people called communism always was so very different from Marx' ideas. No one ever read him. Posted by: Farasha Jan 17 2004, 12:45 AM QUOTE guess that's why what people called communism always was so very different from Marx' ideas. No one ever read him Probably. Well has anyone read the Communist Manifesto? I've been meaning to read that as well. Posted by: jjacksonRIAB Jan 17 2004, 10:56 AM QUOTE (Farasha @ Jan 17 2004, 12:45 AM) QUOTE guess that's why what people called communism always was so very different from Marx' ideas. No one ever read him Probably. Well has anyone read the Communist Manifesto? I've been meaning to read that as well. I think I read it a L O N G time ago. To me it was far less memorable than adverse readings, say for example, Atlas Shrugged. Communism always struck me as a highly idealistic system, but one that could never work because of my experience with human nature. As for Germany, I think the government regulates far too much, with the Bundespost and phone services, among other things. Don't get me wrong though, there is a certain uniformity about the cities that prevent them from having the stylistic clash we have here in the US. I will always think that US cities look like dog vomit in comparison because everything was just thrown together. Of course, I would never presume to tell people that they must look alike, but I have found it to possess a much more pleasant atmosphere when that is the case. Germany's modular thinking approaches the efficiency of Japan, but real estate is uncomfortably expensive there. However, I must admit living there for three years was a wonderful experience. What I most enjoyed was the castle tours down the Rhein... I will go back there some day, but I doubt I'll ever stay. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 17 2004, 11:32 AM QUOTE (Farasha @ Jan 17 2004, 03:45 AM) Probably. Well has anyone read the Communist Manifesto? I've been meaning to read that as well. Really it's not all that special but some parts are interesting. I've been working on it for a little while converting it to other topics. Usually you just have to change the pronouns and it fits several things perfectly. heh Posted by: _jjacksonRIAB Jan 17 2004, 12:29 PM I'm reading the Communist Manifesto as we speak. My initial reaction is that there will always be bourgeois and proletariats. It cannot more evident in practice, where the bourgeois has been replaced by government and the proletariats have been reduced to a nation of paupers. I think the next big revolution will be where each person becomes his own means of production, no longer having to rely on others for anything. This, I think, will destroy the class and labor systems simultaneously. It seems the only people whom are not subjected to bourgeois besides the bourgeois themselves are, ironically enough, criminals, and that is only if my some miracle they manage to keep from being caught. Indeed, there is much profit to be found in flouting government law. This is where the skills of the individual, such as gunsmithing (to sell unmarked guns), illegal drug production, prostitution, assassination, etc will render a vast amount of wealth unto a person through his work singularly. As it is, you can make money networking, but only if you are near the top of a para-military industrial elite, if you sell information or provide an infastructure by which to pass information, or if you sell illegal, and therefore artifically inflated goods. Selling illegal goods favors the individual more than engaging in any other system of gaining wealth, but it also entails the greatest measure of personal risk... Funny, when you think about it. Posted by: questionlife Jan 17 2004, 01:16 PM Organized religion and any sort of human faith is only as moral as the individual practicing it. I don't blame Christ or Budda or Mohammed for immoral human behavior. I question the individual. It's about time that we start questioning the individual motivations of the faithful more often. The faithful have done a fine job of promoting "God's will" throughout history. Let's see they put Christ to death, justified human slavery and launched the Crusades and the Inquisition just to name a few. The organized faithful have turned religion into a steel pipe that is quite handy for beating "non-believers" up with. To fundamentalists of all faiths- religion is a convenient form of power best used to legitimize destruction and subjugate other people. "It's my way....opps I mean God's way or the highway". When the next civil war occurs in the US, religion will figure prominently in the mix. Civil liberties simply cannot compete with "Divine will". The Bible will be our text book, for text books leave little for interpretation. It is much easier to have the essence of human spirituality spelled out for us as opposed to thinking for ourselves. Armed with Divine Authority we can fly airplanes into buildings, knock down people's homes with tanks and promote injustice anywhere it benefits our belief system. Posted by: Tocis Jan 18 2004, 06:57 AM QUOTE (jjacksonRIAB @ Jan 17 2004, 10:56 AM) Communism always struck me as a highly idealistic system, but one that could never work because of my experience with human nature. As for Germany, I think the government regulates far too much, with the Bundespost and phone services, among other things. Germany's modular thinking approaches the efficiency of Japan, but real estate is uncomfortably expensive there. However, I must admit living there for three years was a wonderful experience. What I most enjoyed was the castle tours down the Rhein... I will go back there some day, but I doubt I'll ever stay. Yes, there's a growing movement here, called the "Bürgerkonvent", stating (among other things) that the state tries to regulate much more than necessary, thereby gobbling up far too much personnel and money. There are surely many beautiful places here... in fact, I think you find them everywhere in the old world. Just the fact that much of this stuff is [I]really[7/I[ old appeals to me very much. Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com) © Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com) |