Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The God Thread, Version 2.0
Topic Started: Jun 26 2006, 06:52 PM (1,080 Views)
Catholic Europe
Member Avatar
Spammer
Well, let me know when we are even a centimetre close to that utopia.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Capitalism the only system that has been proven to create wealth, which is a surplus of goods, in other words, capitalism is the only system that is even on the road to that utopia.

Catholic Europe
Jul 2 2006, 09:00 AM
Well, let me know when we are even a centimetre close to that utopia.

And we are a hell of a lot closer than the middle ages, or even just a couple years ago, thanks to capitalism.

[Nag Edit]

Double posts merged. Double posting is bad.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catholic Europe
Member Avatar
Spammer
:rolleyes:

Well, if people favour money and their own personal wealth over helping other people than I might as well commit suicide.

I've not wanted to be the red-man, because I'm not that, but I can enver support a system which will result in exploitation of the poor and the welathy elite taking all the money - which is what laissez-faire capitalism is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kiensland
Member Avatar
Apathetic Lizardman
 *  *  *  *  *
Here's a razorblade, CE. Remember, it's not across the road, it's down the street.

Maybe I'm just too cynical for my own good, since I reckon to a lesser or greater extent you've just described everyone on this mudball.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catholic Europe
Member Avatar
Spammer
What as selfish and greedy?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Esternarx
Jul 2 2006, 09:20 AM
Capitalism the only system that has been proven to create wealth, which is a surplus of goods, in other words, capitalism is the only system that is even on the road to that utopia.

Not so. And not by a long shot. Capitalism is motivated by profit and the exchange of goods. Capitalism is, in fact, against the very nature of the utopia I have described. Capitalism is the force which stifles creativity with the necessity of "earning a living".

Compare, if you will, the capitalist future of Asimov's Spacers with the Communist Utopia of Bank's Culture.

To each according to their need, from each according to ability. That is the essence of the perfect world I have described.

The "wealth" of Capitalism is illusionary - it is not open to all and freely accessable to those who need it. The "surplus of goods" again are rationed to only the select few. A person cannot rise and fall on their own merit to find their own level, but rather they must battle the tide that causes them to be born into poverity, or be bouyed to the grandest heights of being birthed into wealth and luxury.

But what other choice is there? Communism? Certainly not! Communism is a system of equalising and normalising - it too is against the very essence of the true freedom of leting water find it's own level. Comminism stiffles production and also cannot bring about utopia - though once we have the means to create a perfect world, we will be communist.

In essence, we need both Communism and Capitalism. We need both the motivator of a free market, and the facilitator of government support and funding.

We need a government to take a stand and buy the patents for ever lasting lightbulbs and start churning them out!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catholic Europe
Member Avatar
Spammer
We need the third way. We need Corporatism maybe!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Catholic Europe
Jul 2 2006, 10:52 AM
We need the third way. We need Corporatism maybe!

I love your enthusiasm...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
True or false: The poor can be civil.

I say true.

Communism assumes false, and, therefore, as a social benefit to protect the well-to-do, insists on a redistribution of wealth artificially, which creates beurocracies which only act to drain the wealth.

Capitalism, in its purist form, which is currently practiced NOWHERE on the planet (even the USA is a socialist-leaning capitalist system) is the only system to provide society with all the benefits necessary to have a peaceful society

CE, your "Christ" model is a fantasy. If you look at the Church as a personafication of that model, you can see that the poorest, most retched countries tend to be catholic. The "Christ" model works worst of all, for a social plan, just because we do not have a "Christ" in charge.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Filo
Member Avatar
General
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 1 2006, 06:00 AM
Now you say that, and yet I must remind you that until the Council of Nicea the Arius school of thought on Jesus was that he was not devine. Other leading theologians pre-325 debated his ascenscion to heaven and the fact that he rose from the dead.

Christ did not write the Bible. This is true.

But the Bible is the Holy Book for Christianity.

Christ did not call himself, or his followers Christians - they did.

Christianity means following the teachings of Christ. These teachings are recorded by the followers of Jesus.

You can not pick and chose what to follow about what Jesus said. Jesus entrusted the continuing of his teachings to St Peter (the rock).

Christianity is the religion of the followers, not the deity. You cannot ingore the writings of the Bible or the teachings of St Peter and his successors and call yourself Christian. It doesn't work like that.

Even the two "Christians" who've posted since me can't agree on what teachings are "required" by their faith. I think that says something.

You cannot simply twist religion to suit your own needs - or rather you can, and that's my main problem with it.

Unless you follow all the teachings of the Bible and Palpacy, you are not truely Christian. Now you don't have to be Catholic - as Peter's link to the later Palpacy has never been proven and is often thought of as just a method of control invented by the Church - but I strongly recommend it.

Again No.
To be Roman Christian i mus follow the Pope words or bibble interpretation

Tradition, that i like much, is not foundant in cristian Theology.
Only Kerigma is; and Kerigma teach that Jesus Christ, the only son of God(No Heresy disputated this, adopted, as Arians says, or God himself as say Monophisites, always son of god he is) is dead and resurrected for us.

This is the minimal Knowledge to be Christian.
Paul, Peter, Philpp etc...when Baptized roman people(who were Pagans) teach this many of them never know the Bibble(Ebraic one).

Only Kerigma identify you has christian...sorry bu so is...you need only to belive in Jesus Christ dead and ressurrected for you...end of the story
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catholic Europe
Member Avatar
Spammer
New Harumf
Jul 2 2006, 12:48 PM
True or false: The poor can be civil.

I say true.

Communism assumes false, and, therefore, as a social benefit to protect the well-to-do, insists on a redistribution of wealth artificially, which creates beurocracies which only act to drain the wealth.

Capitalism, in its purist form, which is currently practiced NOWHERE on the planet (even the USA is a socialist-leaning capitalist system) is the only system to provide society with all the benefits necessary to have a peaceful society

CE, your "Christ" model is a fantasy. If you look at the Church as a personafication of that model, you can see that the poorest, most retched countries tend to be catholic. The "Christ" model works worst of all, for a social plan, just because we do not have a "Christ" in charge.

That's not true. Those countries are actually Muslim or an eastern religion (or indeed Protestant Christian).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Wrong. Mexico, almost all of South America. Phillipines. These are hotbeds of poverty. India, Banglidesh, etc. have problems with povery also, but mostly from overpopulation and lack of natural resources. Mexico, on the other hand, should be a wealthy country, based on oil revenue and tourism revenue alone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catholic Europe
Member Avatar
Spammer
What about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Indonesia, Niger, Chad, Senegal, Mauritania, Comoros Islands....need I go on?

All Muslim....all very poor.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Catholic Europe
Jul 2 2006, 01:34 PM
What about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Indonesia, Niger, Chad, Senegal, Mauritania, Comoros Islands....need I go on?

All Muslim....all very poor.

OK, the muslim model of communism doesn't work very well either, and it is all based on "The Church" if you will. Same reason as why the catholic model doesn't work.

Also, few natural resources in any of these. I mean, Afghanistan?? What resources do they have? Poppies and rocks!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catholic Europe
Member Avatar
Spammer
So you are saying the poorest and worst countries in the world are predominantly Catholic? I just don't accept that as true. We should consult the HDI Index.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
No, I am not saying they are all catholic. I am saying that the "Christ" based model of communism doesn't work.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Ughh...why does religion have to enter into every damned subject? Religion has nothing to do with capitalism VS. communism. Well, I think Jesus was a communist, but still...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Filo
Jul 2 2006, 12:55 PM
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 1 2006, 06:00 AM
Now you say that, and yet I must remind you that until the Council of Nicea the Arius school of thought on Jesus was that he was not devine. Other leading theologians pre-325 debated his ascenscion to heaven and the fact that he rose from the dead.

Christ did not write the Bible. This is true.

But the Bible is the Holy Book for Christianity.

Christ did not call himself, or his followers Christians - they did.

Christianity means following the teachings of Christ. These teachings are recorded by the followers of Jesus.

You can not pick and chose what to follow about what Jesus said. Jesus entrusted the continuing of his teachings to St Peter (the rock).

Christianity is the religion of the followers, not the deity. You cannot ingore the writings of the Bible or the teachings of St Peter and his successors and call yourself Christian. It doesn't work like that.

Even the two "Christians" who've posted since me can't agree on what teachings are "required" by their faith. I think that says something.

You cannot simply twist religion to suit your own needs - or rather you can, and that's my main problem with it.

Unless you follow all the teachings of the Bible and Palpacy, you are not truely Christian. Now you don't have to be Catholic - as Peter's link to the later Palpacy has never been proven and is often thought of as just a method of control invented by the Church - but I strongly recommend it.

Again No.
To be Roman Christian i mus follow the Pope words or bibble interpretation

Tradition, that i like much, is not foundant in cristian Theology.
Only Kerigma is; and Kerigma teach that Jesus Christ, the only son of God(No Heresy disputated this, adopted, as Arians says, or God himself as say Monophisites, always son of god he is) is dead and resurrected for us.

This is the minimal Knowledge to be Christian.
Paul, Peter, Philpp etc...when Baptized roman people(who were Pagans) teach this many of them never know the Bibble(Ebraic one).

Only Kerigma identify you has christian...sorry bu so is...you need only to belive in Jesus Christ dead and ressurrected for you...end of the story

Again, no.

First off your concept of Kerigma is fundamentally flawed.

While such a belief may have been possible two thousand years ago, the entire concept of that belief system is impossible to follow now. Why? Because you've never met Jesus.

Jesus has never come to you to say he is the son of god. All you know of Jesus is what has been passed down to his followers.

All the teachings of Christianity are second hand.

Thus you cannot, repeat cannot pick and choose what you want to hear.

Letters written by the disciples form the basis of the bible. Those same letters and records of Jesus's teachings form the basis of your Kerigma.

In those records, Jesus states unequivically that he has not come to take away from the teachings of his forefathers.

To accept the message of Kerigma, you must accept the validity of it's source - the apostles. If you accept the validity of the apostles you must accept what they say Jesus taught in the Bible - that it is hard to enter heaven, that it is hard for a rich man to enter heaven, that one must try to follow the old religious laws and seek forgiveness when you transgress, that you must continue to accept the teachings of Peter and his successors.

Kerigma is a system of core beliefs. It is not a belief system. (Nor does it seem to translate accurately to English from Spanish).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Filo
Member Avatar
General
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 2 2006, 04:16 PM
Filo
Jul 2 2006, 12:55 PM
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 1 2006, 06:00 AM
Now you say that, and yet I must remind you that until the Council of Nicea the Arius school of thought on Jesus was that he was not devine. Other leading theologians pre-325 debated his ascenscion to heaven and the fact that he rose from the dead.

Christ did not write the Bible. This is true.

But the Bible is the Holy Book for Christianity.

Christ did not call himself, or his followers Christians - they did.

Christianity means following the teachings of Christ. These teachings are recorded by the followers of Jesus.

You can not pick and chose what to follow about what Jesus said. Jesus entrusted the continuing of his teachings to St Peter (the rock).

Christianity is the religion of the followers, not the deity. You cannot ingore the writings of the Bible or the teachings of St Peter and his successors and call yourself Christian. It doesn't work like that.

Even the two "Christians" who've posted since me can't agree on what teachings are "required" by their faith. I think that says something.

You cannot simply twist religion to suit your own needs - or rather you can, and that's my main problem with it.

Unless you follow all the teachings of the Bible and Palpacy, you are not truely Christian. Now you don't have to be Catholic - as Peter's link to the later Palpacy has never been proven and is often thought of as just a method of control invented by the Church - but I strongly recommend it.

Again No.
To be Roman Christian i mus follow the Pope words or bibble interpretation

Tradition, that i like much, is not foundant in cristian Theology.
Only Kerigma is; and Kerigma teach that Jesus Christ, the only son of God(No Heresy disputated this, adopted, as Arians says, or God himself as say Monophisites, always son of god he is) is dead and resurrected for us.

This is the minimal Knowledge to be Christian.
Paul, Peter, Philpp etc...when Baptized roman people(who were Pagans) teach this many of them never know the Bibble(Ebraic one).

Only Kerigma identify you has christian...sorry bu so is...you need only to belive in Jesus Christ dead and ressurrected for you...end of the story

Again, no.

First off your concept of Kerigma is fundamentally flawed.

While such a belief may have been possible two thousand years ago, the entire concept of that belief system is impossible to follow now. Why? Because you've never met Jesus.

Jesus has never come to you to say he is the son of god. All you know of Jesus is what has been passed down to his followers.

All the teachings of Christianity are second hand.

Thus you cannot, repeat cannot pick and choose what you want to hear.

Letters written by the disciples form the basis of the bible. Those same letters and records of Jesus's teachings form the basis of your Kerigma.

In those records, Jesus states unequivically that he has not come to take away from the teachings of his forefathers.

To accept the message of Kerigma, you must accept the validity of it's source - the apostles. If you accept the validity of the apostles you must accept what they say Jesus taught in the Bible - that it is hard to enter heaven, that it is hard for a rich man to enter heaven, that one must try to follow the old religious laws and seek forgiveness when you transgress, that you must continue to accept the teachings of Peter and his successors.

Kerigma is a system of core beliefs. It is not a belief system. (Nor does it seem to translate accurately to English from Spanish).


I can resfuse Gospels and accept Kerigma.
I can refuse Letters pf Apostles and accept Kerigma.
Kerigma is the base rock of our christian faith.
Many heretic(but for who?) churches accept Kerigma and refuse old testament or accept only part of the new but this not transform them in non Christians Churches only in not Catholic ones.
Kerigma is most ancient of all Gospels(because it was pronunced some years after Christ is dead and many of who have see him were still living)

Kerigma is the only part of Chiristian faith common to ALL christian denomination.

You can say what you please but you cannot change trhe facts and neither the words of Apostles.
Pausl is clear; he said "If you belive that Jesus Christ is dead by crux, and after three day resurrected, you are safe" not "If you belive in the Apostles and the bibble"(i think is the Efesines or Corinthes letter).
Apostles give Baptization also to Pagans that don't know nothing about israel and Bibble but accept to belive in Jesus; in only one word the accept Kerigma
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Quaon
Jul 2 2006, 04:00 PM
Ughh...why does religion have to enter into every damned subject? Religion has nothing to do with capitalism VS. communism. Well, I think Jesus was a communist, but still...

Did you just call Jesus a c☭mmie!?!? Jesus did not want to force everyone into giving their money to poor people, therefore he was not a c☭mmunist. He was a Christian... I mean, he was Jesus Christ, he was God in the flesh. He gave people the choice, the opportunity, to give their money to the poor, and offered them riches in heaven if they did. In this respect, that's rather capitalist of Him, seeing as how everything you do to "the least of these" you're really doing to Him, and, presumably, he loves us and wants us to go to heaven and be happy, he would profit from this exchange. Now, Jesus was not a capitalist, but he sure as hell wasn't a c☭mmie... C☭mmies don't give their own money to the poor, they steal money from other people and then give that away. That doesn't sound like Jesus to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Esternarx
Jul 3 2006, 11:46 PM
Quaon
Jul 2 2006, 04:00 PM
Ughh...why does religion have to enter into every damned subject? Religion has nothing to do with capitalism VS. communism. Well, I think Jesus was a communist, but still...

Did you just call Jesus a c?mmie!?!? Jesus did not want to force everyone into giving their money to poor people, therefore he was not a c?mmunist. He was a Christian... I mean, he was Jesus Christ, he was God in the flesh. He gave people the choice, the opportunity, to give their money to the poor, and offered them riches in heaven if they did. In this respect, that's rather capitalist of Him, seeing as how everything you do to "the least of these" you're really doing to Him, and, presumably, he loves us and wants us to go to heaven and be happy, he would profit from this exchange. Now, Jesus was not a capitalist, but he sure as hell wasn't a c?mmie... C?mmies don't give their own money to the poor, they steal money from other people and then give that away. That doesn't sound like Jesus to me.

No, that's Russian socialists.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Filo
Member Avatar
General
Esternarx
Jul 3 2006, 11:46 PM
Quaon
Jul 2 2006, 04:00 PM
Ughh...why does religion have to enter into every damned subject? Religion has nothing to do with capitalism VS. communism. Well, I think Jesus was a communist, but still...

Did you just call Jesus a c☭mmie!?!? Jesus did not want to force everyone into giving their money to poor people, therefore he was not a c☭mmunist. He was a Christian... I mean, he was Jesus Christ, he was God in the flesh. He gave people the choice, the opportunity, to give their money to the poor, and offered them riches in heaven if they did. In this respect, that's rather capitalist of Him, seeing as how everything you do to "the least of these" you're really doing to Him, and, presumably, he loves us and wants us to go to heaven and be happy, he would profit from this exchange. Now, Jesus was not a capitalist, but he sure as hell wasn't a c☭mmie... C☭mmies don't give their own money to the poor, they steal money from other people and then give that away. That doesn't sound like Jesus to me.

Never hear talk about Social-Christianism?

Jesus was not Comunist? perhaps but sure he was not a capitalist.
Christianity have a strong component of socialism in its political and economic doctrines.
The original Church because considere the second coming of JC near, the to day church because mammon(the richness) is oppose to christian life
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Filo
Jul 3 2006, 06:50 PM
Pausl is clear; he said "If you belive that Jesus Christ is dead by crux, and after three day resurrected, you are safe" not "If you belive in the Apostles and the bibble"(i think is the Efesines or Corinthes letter).

Jesus is clear. He said "I have not come to take away from the teachings of the Torah", he said "the road to heaven is narrow and thorny, while the path to hell is wide", he said "whoever follows me should be ready to carry their own cross".

Belief is not a passive thing. It is an active thing. It requires commitment, dedication and action.

If you're willing to accept the statement of Paul (in the bible) then why not accept the other teachings of that same book?

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 4 2006, 04:03 PM
Belief is not a passive thing. It is an active thing. It requires commitment, dedication and action.

Bingo. I'm not going to weigh in on anything else in this topic, but this statement is something I agree with 100%. My respect for a given Christian denomination has everything to do with how much dedication and comitment it asks from its members.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 4 2006, 03:03 PM
Filo
Jul 3 2006, 06:50 PM
Pausl is clear; he said "If you belive that Jesus Christ is dead by crux, and after three day resurrected, you are safe" not "If you belive in the Apostles and the bibble"(i think is the Efesines or Corinthes letter).

Jesus is clear. He said "I have not come to take away from the teachings of the Torah", he said "the road to heaven is narrow and thorny, while the path to hell is wide", he said "whoever follows me should be ready to carry their own cross".

Belief is not a passive thing. It is an active thing. It requires commitment, dedication and action.

If you're willing to accept the statement of Paul (in the bible) then why not accept the other teachings of that same book?

Posted Image

Nag, let's examine why you are trying to say we have to believe the Old Testement if we believe the New Testement:

Hmm...you're trying to categorize all religious people as anti-science nuts. Is that it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply