putting religion in it's proper place

[Sculptor]

Says you, someone that has NO experience and is extremely unlikely to ever be given any experience from God\'God' since IT requires a degree of faith first.

You do not know me.
I was a born again Christian when I was 14.

Really! No wonder you became atheist.

You are not in a position to comment.

[Immanuel Can]

Note,The Nordic model ...

Nope.

The Nordic Model uses Socialist principles only partially, and only on the outflow side...such as in health care or welfare. On the income side, it's Capitalist. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzEPKrHalaY and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yGpU-nxtIk.

So me evidence the CONSTITUTION of above governments committed and condone evil and violent acts?

Nice try. But they're not actually Socialist. See the videos. They're short and fun.

There are a lot of evil and violence acts in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but they are all caused by evil prone Muslims influenced by the inherently evil Islam.

But where are the evil Buddhists, Quakers, Anabaptists, and Hassidim there? How come only one "religion" is a problem?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note,The Nordic model ...

Nope.

The Nordic Model uses Socialist principles only partially, and only on the outflow side...such as in health care or welfare. On the income side, it's Capitalist. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzEPKrHalaY and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yGpU-nxtIk.

So me evidence the CONSTITUTION of above governments committed and condone evil and violent acts?

Nice try. But they're not actually Socialist. See the videos. They're short and fun.

Is China, Russia and the likes totally & purely socialist??
No they are not.

There are a lot of evil and violence acts in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but theyare all caused by evil prone Muslims influenced by the inherently evil Islam.

But where are the evil Buddhists, Quakers, Anabaptists, and Hassidim there? How come only one "religion" is a problem?

That is the point, just as one cannot accuse all religions are evil, one cannot accuse all systems of 'socialism' are evil.

[Belinda]

Immanuel, you did not read the link I posted to the life and work of prime minister Clement Attlee, who was a Labour PM just after the War. His economic model was Keynesian. If you disapprove of Keynesianism you will perhaps prefer the international market place be unfettered.

Socialists are not necessarily opposed to capitalism, although communists are so. With no restraints on the market the elites get to be nasty people . And if you don't believe that you have a dangerously optimistic view of human nature.

Perhaps your view is Almighty God will sort out human nature either nowadays or at the end of time.If so, why not be on God's side right now and support laws that limit greed?

[Immanuel Can]

Is China, Russia and the likes totally & purely socialist??
No they are not.

That argument is a bait-and-switch game.

According to today's Socialists, there has never been any Socialism so far. All the failed regimes of the past were "not pure." And then they want us to believe that the NEXT regime, the one they want to establish, would finally be the "pure" one.

One wonders how arrogant they can possibly be. The people in Russia, China and elsewhere, they want you to believe, were fools. And today's Westerners are wise in all the ways in which the North Koreans, the Zimbabweans, the Cubans and Venezuelans were stupid children. And we should now trust today's Socialists, because they alone are "pure," and mature, and would do Socialism right.

No thanks. We can't afford the corpses.

one cannot accuse all systems of 'socialism' are evil.

One can prove that every regime of Socialism in the real world so far has been evil.

That, I would say, is a good enough as a reason not to try it again.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=478033 time=1604238346 user_id=9431]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=477997 time=1604210469 user_id=7896]
Is China, Russia and the likes totally & purely socialist??
No they are not.[/quote]
That argument is a bait-and-switch game.

According to today's Socialists, [i]there has never been[/i] any Socialism so far. All the failed regimes of the past were "not pure." And then they want us to believe that the NEXT regime, the one they want to establish, would finally be the "pure" one.

One wonders how arrogant they can possibly be. The people in Russia, China and elsewhere, they want you to believe, were fools. And today's Westerners are wise in all the ways in which the North Koreans, the Zimbabweans, the Cubans and Venezuelans were stupid children. And we should now trust today's Socialists, because they alone are "pure," and mature, and would do Socialism right.

No thanks. We can't afford the corpses.

[quote]
one cannot accuse all systems of 'socialism' are evil.
[/quote]
One can prove that every regime of Socialism in the real world so far has been evil.

That, I would say, is a good enough as a reason not to try it again.
[/quote]

Almost every successful family is socialist. Liar.

[Immanuel Can]

Almost every successful family is socialist.

Heh. That's funny. No, they are not. Good families, we might say, are limited-democratic. Final decisions are made by the parents, which makes sense; they're the oldest and smartest. They can take the children's preferences into consideration, but those wishes are not definitive...or, often, even particularly wise.

Socialists claim that Socialism is "rule by the people." If families were Socialist, then, they'd be ruled by the children.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, you did not read the link I posted to the life and work of prime minister Clement Attlee, who was a Labour PM just after the War. His economic model was Keynesian. If you disapprove of Keynesianism you will perhaps prefer the international market place be unfettered.

Atlee et al. nearly completely sank the British economy, if you recall. You can have him. As for the international marketplace, nobody can actually control that, unless you opt for totalitarian globalism -- in which case, God help us all.

Socialists are not necessarily opposed to capitalism, although communists are so.

Sure they are. Socialists are economic nationalists...they believe in nationalizing public services and private industry alike. And it's really hard to have "capitalism" when every service and industry has a government-protected monopoly.

With no restraints on the market the elites get to be nasty people .

Yes, they do. But with no restraints on their power, Socialist governments become inbred, moribund and homicidal. So let's take a third option, not Socialism. After all, there is no need that we are offered only Socialism, on the one hand, or the "Wild Economic West" on the other. We can, for example, limit the number and sorts of things we allow government to undertake, and put checks and balances on government authority, while still having things like anti-trust regulation and public works, which are necessary for maximal individual opportunity and for markets to flourish.

And if you don't believe that you have a dangerously optimistic view of human nature.

It's funny...really funny...you should say that.

There is no one more gormlessly naive about human nature than a Socialist. He actually thinks that he can trust every aspect of his life and well-being to the tender care of a certain cadre of other humans, all of them possessed of singular power.

And every single time in history, that gormless naivete has killed people. Still, they want to try it again.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=478047 time=1604240105 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478042 time=1604239586 user_id=15238]
Almost every successful family is socialist.
[/quote]
Heh. That's funny. No, they are not. Good families, we might say, are limited-democratic. Final decisions are made by the parents, which makes sense; they're the oldest and smartest. They can take the children's preferences into consideration, but those wishes are not definitive...or, often, even particularly wise.

Socialists claim that Socialism is "rule by the people." If families were Socialist, then, they'd be ruled by the children.
[/quote]

You seem to switch willy-nilly between different versions of socialism and communism to find the one that supports your point without ever considering how other people use those words or the central idea of either. The central idea of socialism is to do away with special interests. The central idea of communism is centralised control of everything (also for the good of everyone). In each case, there are many other variables that can change the outcome, and you cannot pretend atrocities are committed by people acting in good faith in the name of either. Ideologies must be judged by what they intend to do, to a logical extreme, and if they fail, then by their incompleteness, so long as their intent was good. Socialism isn't "government control regardless of anything", that's fascism. Socialism is "power to the people, for the good of everyone". Likewise for stateism and communism. They're not like democracy or capitalism which would be terrible even if they worked exactly as intended at their core. The problems are in the implementation and interference, not in the ideology. If you can get that straight you can start making observations that matter. Until then, you straw man is more air than straw now from all the shots you've fired through it.

But can we talk about religion now? Socialism is a different post.

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to switch willy-nilly between different versions of socialism and communism to find the one that supports your point without ever considering how other people use those words or the central idea of either.

Well, contrary to your supposition, you're not free to "use" words for whatever you want. They are tools of communication, which means that the socially-general meaning must rule, and one's mere personal preferences of "use" are irrelevant.

The central idea of socialism is to do away with special interests.

No, sorry...that's not what it is. Rather, it's to make the only "interest" that counts that of the all-powerful State. It's to put you in the clutches of the only "special interest" that gets to count anymore.

But can we talk about religion now? Socialism is a different post.

I don't think it is. I think we can fairly say that the affection for Socialism that some people have is so wild, so devoid of facts, and so utterly blind to realities that it certainly qualifies as a "religious" affection, in the darkest and most extreme sense of which that word is capable.

It's not for nothing that Marx insisted that the critique of religion was, "the first critique." Socialism is the secular replacement.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=478053 time=1604242748 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478051 time=1604241041 user_id=15238]
You seem to switch willy-nilly between different versions of socialism and communism to find the one that supports your point without ever considering how other people use those words or the central idea of either. [/quote]
Well, contrary to your supposition, you're not free to "use" words for whatever you want. They are tools of communication, which means that the socially-general meaning must rule, and one's mere personal preferences of "use" are irrelevant.

[quote]The central idea of socialism is to do away with special interests.[/quote]
No, sorry...that's not what it is. Rather, it's to make the only "interest" that counts that of the all-powerful State. It's to put you in the clutches of the only "special interest" that gets to count anymore.

[quote]But can we talk about religion now? Socialism is a different post.[/quote]
I don't think it is. I think we can fairly say that the affection for Socialism that some people have is so wild, so devoid of facts, and so utterly blind to realities that it certainly qualifies as a "religious" affection, in the darkest and most extreme sense of which that word is capable.

It's not for nothing that Marx insisted that the critique of religion was, "the first critique." Socialism is the secular replacement.
[/quote]

To the extent it has dogmatic beliefs it could be religion, but religion isn't as simple as all that.

[attofishpi]

You seem to switch willy-nilly between different versions of socialism and communism to find the one that supports your point without ever considering how other people use those words or the central idea of either.

Well, contrary to your supposition, you're not free to "use" words for whatever you want. They are tools of communication, which means that the socially-general meaning must rule, and one's mere personal preferences of "use" are irrelevant.

The central idea of socialism is to do away with special interests.

No, sorry...that's not what it is. Rather, it's to make the only "interest" that counts that of the all-powerful State. It's to put you in the clutches of the only "special interest" that gets to count anymore.

But can we talk about religion now? Socialism is a different post.

I don't think it is. I think we can fairly say that the affection for Socialism that some people have is so wild, so devoid of facts, and so utterly blind to realities that it certainly qualifies as a "religious" affection, in the darkest and most extreme sense of which that word is capable.

It's not for nothing that Marx insisted that the critique of religion was, "the first critique." Socialism is the secular replacement.

To the extent it has dogmatic beliefs it could be religion, but religion isn't as simple as all that.

DOGMA? AM_GOD.

[Immanuel Can]

To the extent it has dogmatic beliefs it could be religion, but religion isn't as simple as all that.

People certainly treat it as a "religion," in the broadest sense. They invest all their physical and metaphysical yearnings in believing in it, even in defiance of all the evidence against it.

"Religion" is not a simple concept. Experts in the study of "religion" still don't agree about what its exact parameters and features are. It defies simple definition; and though attempts to narrow it down have been made criterially, functionally, sociologically, and even semiotically, no single definition seems to stick, quite.

For our purposes, Socialism is at least functionally, a "religion." That is, it serves the "religious" purpose in some people's lives of providing the ideal around which they organize all their priorities, and in which they invest all their credence.

[Greatest I am]

Religions are all empty. Fantasies for the empty headed. Myths for the hard of thinking.

Think duality and how religions are basically tribes.

Without our tribal instincts/religions, we would not be here.

Without tribes we would have no war, no bigotry, and no persecution.

Sure, but we would not exist either, as we are the weakest and most insecure animal on the planet, ---- whos first tribe/protection and fellowship is his family. Take that way if you think you can.

Without tribes, we are extinct.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

From Stanford:
According to the Gnostics, this world, the material cosmos, is the result of a primordial error on the part of a supra-cosmic, supremely divine being, usually called Sophia (Wisdom) or simply the Logos. This being is described as the final emanation of a divine hierarchy, called the Plêrôma or “Fullness,” at the head of which resides the supreme God, the One beyond Being. The error of Sophia, which is usually identified as a reckless desire to know the transcendent God, leads to the hypostatization of her desire in the form of a semi-divine and essentially ignorant creature known as the Demiurge (Greek: dêmiourgos, “craftsman”), or Ialdabaoth, who is responsible for the formation of the material cosmos. This act of craftsmanship is actually an imitation of the realm of the Pleroma, but the Demiurge is ignorant of this, and hubristically declares himself the only existing God.
It's just a bunch of ancient mumbo-jumbo.

That's actually not bad. God - the Supreme Being formed 'God' - an A.I. that manifests all matter and indeed even our consciousness, but is COLD LOGIC - not conscious...ignorant.



Greatest I Am - somewhere in one of these threads you stated some stuff I could finally agree with regarding Gnosticism, but then it all went to shit.

You like to start a lot of threads taking the piss out of standard Christian faith. I also don't care much for 'Christian' religious doctrine.

Why don't you start a thread dedicated to your Gnosticism, I'd be interested to have a read.

From WIKI:- Theism and atheism are positions of belief (or lack of it), while gnosticism and agnosticism are positions of knowledge (or the lack of it)

I have gnosis, but unfortunately when I click on the link to gnosticism there is a lot of assumption and things that conflict with my knowledge.

Not too surprising given the lies the inquisitors put out there to try to justify their many murders.

I do speak of my beliefs when asked but admit to concentrating on fighting the evil I see Christianity and Islam doing.

For evil to grow and all that, plus few these days are seeking a religion or insight into reality.

My first suggestion is to read the Gnostic gospels and then find a guy like me to give you my take on things.

The first thing you should know is that we hold absolutely no supernatural beliefs. We are naturalists as well as esoteric ecumenists.

Logos is superior to mythos and mythos is not required to explain reality.

============

You spoke of matter above. Here is your first Gnostic Christian lesson.

Let me speak to the lie of Gnostic Christians hating matter.

I wrote this to refute the false notion that Gnostic Christians do not like matter and reality that the inquisitors propagated to justify their many murders of my religions originators. It shows that Christians should actually hate matter and not Gnostic Christians.

The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Gen 3; 17 Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
-----------

The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL