Corporation Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

Sin is a reality for men as are penalties for sin. As for judgement, nobody except God knows for sure who is a sheep and who is a goat. We have to do what we can to control wrong doing.

Yes, it's true that God is the Judge. But He has told us a couple of things, and we can believe Him: one, sin is a reality, and is the fault of human will, not of God. Secondly, there will be "sheep," but also "goats": and there will be said to the "goats," the words, "Depart from Me, you workers of iniquity," and "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

You don't seem to understand The Bible as a whole .

I have to say, this is really, really funny...projection of the first order. But I'll let you believe it.

...we know that there are not many sins left any more...

Oh, my, B...."we know," you say? Apparently "we" don't "know" anything at all.

Have you ever read these words: "But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, slanderers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness although they have denied its power; avoid such people as these." (2 Tim. 3:1-5)

Or the words of Christ, in Matthew 24:

"And at that time many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will rise up and mislead many people. And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will become cold. But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come."

If you'd read the Bible even once, you could not have missed these passages. So now, who "doesn't seem to understand the Bible as a whole"?

Yes these passages in The Bible are impressive. By 'sins' I don't refer to fallen human nature, as do Timothy and Christ. I refer to specific outdated sins such as adultery, sodomy, masturbation, scepticism, disobedience to authority, lack of circumcision, or lack of covering of one's primary or secondary genitalia .

Judging by what you've selected, it kind of looks like you've arbitrarily eliminated the sexual stuff from the category "sin." On what basis did you select what you selected -- and leave the rest, such as murder, pederasty, theft, lying, etc?

[Belinda]

Yes, it's true that God is the Judge. But He has told us a couple of things, and we can believe Him: one, sin is a reality, and is the fault of human will, not of God. Secondly, there will be "sheep," but also "goats": and there will be said to the "goats," the words, "Depart from Me, you workers of iniquity," and "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”


I have to say, this is really, really funny...projection of the first order. But I'll let you believe it.

Oh, my, B...."we know," you say? Apparently "we" don't "know" anything at all.

Have you ever read these words: "But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, slanderers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness although they have denied its power; avoid such people as these." (2 Tim. 3:1-5)

Or the words of Christ, in Matthew 24:

"And at that time many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will rise up and mislead many people. And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will become cold. But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come."

If you'd read the Bible even once, you could not have missed these passages. So now, who "doesn't seem to understand the Bible as a whole"?

Yes these passages in The Bible are impressive. By 'sins' I don't refer to fallen human nature, as do Timothy and Christ. I refer to specific outdated sins such as adultery, sodomy, masturbation, scepticism, disobedience to authority, lack of circumcision, or lack of covering of one's primary or secondary genitalia .

Judging by what you've selected, it kind of looks like you've arbitrarily eliminated the sexual stuff from the category "sin." On what basis did you select what you selected -- and leave the rest, such as murder, pederasty, theft, lying, etc?

It's a good question.
it seems to me that a great deal of sexual sinning stopped being sinful . I think the reason for this is the shift away from the old worldview where bodies were sinful and minds i.e. souls were higher in the hierarchy than bodies.Angels were better than minds and so forth up to the very top, God.


The traditional Christmas story with poor shepherds showed a simple fruit of bodily labour, a lamb from a shepherd , was as acceptable to God as more sophisticated gifts of gold, frankincense , and myrrh.

We cannot give up murder as a sin because murderers are dangerous to others. Theft is an interesting sin as theft is sometimes identified as capitalistic enterprise and also as political imperialism; I understand some religious sects hold that all property is theft.

Abuse of children will always be a sin because we must protect our children at least because children are the new generation, especially in the days of social mobility. In fact child abuse has become a lot more sinful since 19th -20th century reformers such as Dickens, William Blake, and Jack London stepped up to the mark. There was a time when Irish Catholic nuns' laundries that employed unmarried mothers would not have raised an eyebrow.

[Immanuel Can]

It's a good question.
it seems to me that a great deal of sexual sinning stopped being sinful .

How does that come about?

I mean, if it's just "whatever is no longer scandalous in my society," then there's practically nothing that is "sin" at all, including murder, spousal abuse and robbery, since there have been societies that, at one time or another, celebrated almost everything human beings have ever done.

I think the reason for this is the shift away from the old worldview where bodies were sinful and minds i.e. souls were higher in the hierarchy than bodies.Angels were better than minds and so forth up to the very top, God.

That's Gnosticism.

We cannot give up murder as a sin because murderers are dangerous to others.

"Dangerous"? Well, a lot of the sexual practices you have listed are dangerous, too...and not insignificantly, since AIDS and such. And what about things like slander, theft, embezzlement, xenophobia, repression of women, slavery, injustice...these aren't necessarily dangerous, and can be conducted in ways that do not endanger any persons in some bodily way...but you're not excluding them from the "sin" list, are you?

Theft is an interesting sin as theft is sometimes identified as capitalistic enterprise and also as political imperialism; I understand some religious sects hold that all property is theft.

That would be very silly, of course.

I know Marxists think that: they assume that any inequality signals something like theft, or oppression, or injustice...but they're just wrong: these things CAN be symptoms of theft or oppression, but by no means are ALWAYS or NECESSARILY so. Inequality is actually an ineradicable feature of individuality, and is as common as oxygen, in the real world...maybe not in the confused minds of the Marxists, but where sane people live.

Abuse of children will always be a sin because we must protect our children at least because children are the new generation, especially in the days of social mobility.

Interesting.

You're against abortion, then?

In fact child abuse has become a lot more sinful since 19th -20th century reformers such as Dickens, William Blake, and Jack London stepped up to the mark. There was a time when Irish Catholic nuns' laundries that employed unmarried mothers would not have raised an eyebrow.

We still live in the days of Epstein and his clients. If sex is off the list of "sins," then you'd have to think the man and his fellow exploiters and rapists were no "sinners." After all, they didn't, per se, "endanger" anybody physically...

Is it possible, B., that you're associating those acts you don't feel personally troubled by, or that your society now approves and celebrates, as proof that these things are now less "sinful" than they used to be? Because so far as I can see, the Word of God on that has not followed the social trends.

[Belinda]

It's a good question.
it seems to me that a great deal of sexual sinning stopped being sinful .

How does that come about?

I mean, if it's just "whatever is no longer scandalous in my society," then there's practically nothing that is "sin" at all, including murder, spousal abuse and robbery, since there have been societies that, at one time or another, celebrated almost everything human beings have ever done.

I think the reason for this is the shift away from the old worldview where bodies were sinful and minds i.e. souls were higher in the hierarchy than bodies.Angels were better than minds and so forth up to the very top, God.

That's Gnosticism.

We cannot give up murder as a sin because murderers are dangerous to others.

"Dangerous"? Well, a lot of the sexual practices you have listed are dangerous, too...and not insignificantly, since AIDS and such. And what about things like slander, theft, embezzlement, xenophobia, repression of women, slavery, injustice...these aren't necessarily dangerous, and can be conducted in ways that do not endanger any persons in some bodily way...but you're not excluding them from the "sin" list, are you?

Theft is an interesting sin as theft is sometimes identified as capitalistic enterprise and also as political imperialism; I understand some religious sects hold that all property is theft.

That would be very silly, of course.

I know Marxists think that: they assume that any inequality signals something like theft, or oppression, or injustice...but they're just wrong: these things CAN be symptoms of theft or oppression, but by no means are ALWAYS or NECESSARILY so. Inequality is actually an ineradicable feature of individuality, and is as common as oxygen, in the real world...maybe not in the confused minds of the Marxists, but where sane people live.

Abuse of children will always be a sin because we must protect our children at least because children are the new generation, especially in the days of social mobility.

Interesting.

You're against abortion, then?

In fact child abuse has become a lot more sinful since 19th -20th century reformers such as Dickens, William Blake, and Jack London stepped up to the mark. There was a time when Irish Catholic nuns' laundries that employed unmarried mothers would not have raised an eyebrow.

We still live in the days of Epstein and his clients. If sex is off the list of "sins," then you'd have to think the man and his fellow exploiters and rapists were no "sinners." After all, they didn't, per se, "endanger" anybody physically...

Is it possible, B., that you're associating those acts you don't feel personally troubled by, or that your society now approves and celebrates, as proof that these things are now less "sinful" than they used to be? Because so far as I can see, the Word of God on that has not followed the social trends.

The Word of God has been interpreted for us by prophets and seers including Jesus of Nazareth. My society i.e. the culture of belief I voluntarily associate with is based upon the doctrine of love as propounded by Jesus and other major prophets such as Socrates, Confucius, Buddha, and the inspiration of Jesus who is Isaiah.

Jesus Christ is the Logos, the Word. Since social trends don't follow the teachings of Jesus Christ we need to make more effort to follow these teachings . It's a waste of your time and energy to quarrel with people of good will.

My reply here is general not particular. To reply to all your particular objections in one post would take a book not a reply in a discussion forum, so you had better raise particular objections singly each in a separate post.

However I do appreciate your Biblical quotations which are well chosen, and I also appreciate all your objections because they make me think.

[Immanuel Can]

The Word of God has been interpreted for us by prophets and seers including Jesus of Nazareth. My society i.e. the culture of belief I voluntarily associate with is based upon the doctrine of love as propounded by Jesus and other major prophets such as Socrates, Confucius, Buddha, and the inspiration of Jesus who is Isaiah.

"Jesus who is Isaiah"? That's a new one. In Scripture, they're definitely different individuals.

What do you do when these various "words" say opposite things? Which "word" do you follow when one says, "Love your enemies," and another says essentially, "Ignore your enemies," and a third says, "Kill your enemies"?

Jesus Christ is the Logos, the Word. Since social trends don't follow the teachings of Jesus Christ we need to make more effort to follow these teachings .

Well, I know where He said that not the smallest particle of the OT Word of God would fail to be fulfilled...I'm just wondering where you think He repealed the edicts against sexual sin...

However I do appreciate your Biblical quotations which are well chosen, and I also appreciate all your objections because they make me think.

Oh, fair enough. That's good.

[Belinda]

The Word of God has been interpreted for us by prophets and seers including Jesus of Nazareth. My society i.e. the culture of belief I voluntarily associate with is based upon the doctrine of love as propounded by Jesus and other major prophets such as Socrates, Confucius, Buddha, and the inspiration of Jesus who is Isaiah.

"Jesus who is Isaiah"? That's a new one. In Scripture, they're definitely different individuals.

What do you do when these various "words" say opposite things? Which "word" do you follow when one says, "Love your enemies," and another says essentially, "Ignore your enemies," and a third says, "Kill your enemies"?

Jesus Christ is the Logos, the Word. Since social trends don't follow the teachings of Jesus Christ we need to make more effort to follow these teachings .

Well, I know where He said that not the smallest particle of the OT Word of God would fail to be fulfilled...I'm just wondering where you think He repealed the edicts against sexual sin...

However I do appreciate your Biblical quotations which are well chosen, and I also appreciate all your objections because they make me think.

Oh, fair enough. That's good.

Messianic prophecies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testa ... is%20death%

[Immanuel Can]

The Word of God has been interpreted for us by prophets and seers including Jesus of Nazareth. My society i.e. the culture of belief I voluntarily associate with is based upon the doctrine of love as propounded by Jesus and other major prophets such as Socrates, Confucius, Buddha, and the inspiration of Jesus who is Isaiah.

"Jesus who is Isaiah"? That's a new one. In Scripture, they're definitely different individuals.

What do you do when these various "words" say opposite things? Which "word" do you follow when one says, "Love your enemies," and another says essentially, "Ignore your enemies," and a third says, "Kill your enemies"?

Jesus Christ is the Logos, the Word. Since social trends don't follow the teachings of Jesus Christ we need to make more effort to follow these teachings .

Well, I know where He said that not the smallest particle of the OT Word of God would fail to be fulfilled...I'm just wondering where you think He repealed the edicts against sexual sin...

However I do appreciate your Biblical quotations which are well chosen, and I also appreciate all your objections because they make me think.

Oh, fair enough. That's good.

Messianic prophecies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testa ... is%20death%

A "Messianic prophecy" doesn't mean that the prophet was himself the Messiah. It means he was a prophet of, or for, the Messiah.

[Belinda]

"Jesus who is Isaiah"? That's a new one. In Scripture, they're definitely different individuals.

What do you do when these various "words" say opposite things? Which "word" do you follow when one says, "Love your enemies," and another says essentially, "Ignore your enemies," and a third says, "Kill your enemies"?

Well, I know where He said that not the smallest particle of the OT Word of God would fail to be fulfilled...I'm just wondering where you think He repealed the edicts against sexual sin...

Oh, fair enough. That's good.

Messianic prophecies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testa ... is%20death%

A "Messianic prophecy" doesn't mean that the prophet was himself the Messiah. It means he was a prophet of, or for, the Messiah.

Of course! The Christian Messiah, Jesus Christ , was however well aware of and respectful towards Isaiah. Isaiah foretold JC. Some material in the Gospels was deliberately inserted so as to show how the prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. I posted a link to the many OT prophecies that match NT accounts of Jesus. I did these links with Isaiah for school certificate 'Scripture' when I was sixteen. It's elementary stuff.

[Immanuel Can]

Messianic prophecies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testa ... is%20death%

A "Messianic prophecy" doesn't mean that the prophet was himself the Messiah. It means he was a prophet of, or for, the Messiah.

Of course! The Christian Messiah, Jesus Christ , was however well aware of and respectful towards Isaiah.

Well, yes: in fact, Jesus quoted Isaiah, such as chapter 61, explicitly.

Isaiah foretold JC.

As in chapter 53, for example.

Some material in the Gospels was deliberately inserted so as to show how the prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.

Or, to look at it another way, what Isaiah predicted was fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

[Belinda]

A "Messianic prophecy" doesn't mean that the prophet was himself the Messiah. It means he was a prophet of, or for, the Messiah.

Of course! The Christian Messiah, Jesus Christ , was however well aware of and respectful towards Isaiah.

Well, yes: in fact, Jesus quoted Isaiah, such as chapter 61, explicitly.

Isaiah foretold JC.

As in chapter 53, for example.

Some material in the Gospels was deliberately inserted so as to show how the prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.

Or, to look at it another way, what Isaiah predicted was fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

That's not looking at it another way, that is what I said! Except you said "Jesus Christ"whereas I said "Jesus of Nazareth' '. In fact Christian doctrine and history agree on the point of important and intentional links between the between the NT and the OT prophet. JC/Jesus was not politically naive . He probably acted on occasion so as to be seen to fulfill the OT prophet, for instance his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

I hope some ministers have made a sermon from Jesus' Triumphal Entry into Jesusalem, Jesus well knew He was about to seriously inconvenience the Roman conquerors but He did it anyway.
He did it anyway. That was what we'd today call 'a demo' . It was what Judaism was about and Judaism is not for supporting imperialism or using Judaism for the purposes of imperialism,

[Immanuel Can]

Of course! The Christian Messiah, Jesus Christ , was however well aware of and respectful towards Isaiah.

Well, yes: in fact, Jesus quoted Isaiah, such as chapter 61, explicitly.

Isaiah foretold JC.

As in chapter 53, for example.

Some material in the Gospels was deliberately inserted so as to show how the prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.

Or, to look at it another way, what Isaiah predicted was fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

That's not looking at it another way, that is what I said! Except you said "Jesus Christ"whereas I said "Jesus of Nazareth' '.

It makes all the difference. "Jesus of Nazereth" was the name given by those who thought of Him as merely man...somebody "from Nazareth." "Jesus Christ" is the name given to those who know He's the Messiah of Israel and Son of God. So the name one picks shows what one thinks of Him.

And that's the key issue, B. It's where we take our stand on who Jesus really is.

He probably acted on occasion so as to be seen to fulfill the OT prophet, for instance his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

Again, we're seeing this in reverse: did Jesus Christ merely plan and pretend ("to be seen") to fulfill those prophecies, or was He the actual fulfillment of those prophecies? And again, the speaker's disposition to Him is revealed.

Judaism is not for supporting imperialism or using Judaism for the purposes of imperialism,

A strange claim. Who ever suggested it was?

[Belinda]

Well, yes: in fact, Jesus quoted Isaiah, such as chapter 61, explicitly.

As in chapter 53, for example.


Or, to look at it another way, what Isaiah predicted was fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

That's not looking at it another way, that is what I said! Except you said "Jesus Christ"whereas I said "Jesus of Nazareth' '.

It makes all the difference. "Jesus of Nazereth" was the name given by those who thought of Him as merely man...somebody "from Nazareth." "Jesus Christ" is the name given to those who know He's the Messiah of Israel and Son of God. So the name one picks shows what one thinks of Him.

And that's the key issue, B. It's where we take our stand on who Jesus really is.

He probably acted on occasion so as to be seen to fulfill the OT prophet, for instance his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.

Again, we're seeing this in reverse: did Jesus Christ merely plan and pretend ("to be seen") to fulfill those prophecies, or was He the actual fulfillment of those prophecies? And again, There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio …

Judaism is not for supporting imperialism or using Judaism for the purposes of imperialism,

A strange claim. Who ever suggested it was?

Netanyahu's propaganda. Nationalists and imperialists commonly pretend to be religious. Forked tongues.

"So the name one picks shows what one thinks of Him."(I.C.)

Indeed so.

In the case of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem he is both Jesus Christ and the historical Jesus of Nazareth. This personage is an icon of goodness that is transferrable from age to age, society to society. He is as much a paradigm of goodness for the modern atheist as He is for believers.

I

[Immanuel Can]

Judaism is not for supporting imperialism or using Judaism for the purposes of imperialism,

A strange claim. Who ever suggested it was?

Netanyahu's propaganda.

Well, it's possible you're right, and Biblically, I think you are...but I wonder how you became the authority on that. It seems to me that modern Jews are the ones to tell us what Modern Judaism "is for." I think there's a fair bit of Modern Judaism that's a huge distance from what OT Judaism was said to be.

He is as much a paradigm of goodness for the modern atheist as He is for believers.

I can't imagine why an Atheist would think he owes ANYTHING to the example or teaching of a person, when Atheism doesn't even provide grounds for any morality at all.

But this far, I can agree with you: the Atheist's refusal to see who Christ is will not protect the Atheist from being morally obligated to bow to His moral authority, nor will it provide even the first line of excuse when the Atheist stands before the God she refused to believe in. So in that sense, Jesus Christ is still the "paradigm of goodness" for all places and times. It's just that the Atheist ends up on the condemned side of that fact.

[Belinda]

A strange claim. Who ever suggested it was?

Netanyahu's propaganda.

Well, it's possible you're right, and Biblically, I think you are...but I wonder how you became the authority on that. It seems to me that modern Jews are the ones to tell us what Modern Judaism "is for." I think there's a fair bit of Modern Judaism that's a huge distance from what OT Judaism was said to be.

He is as much a paradigm of goodness for the modern atheist as He is for believers.

I can't imagine why an Atheist would think he owes ANYTHING to the example or teaching of a person, when Atheism doesn't even provide grounds for any morality at all.

But this far, I can agree with you: the Atheist's refusal to see who Christ is will not protect the Atheist from being morally obligated to bow to His moral authority, nor will it provide even the first line of excuse when the Atheist stands before the God she refused to believe in. So in that sense, Jesus Christ is still the "paradigm of goodness" for all places and times. It's just that the Atheist ends up on the condemned side of that fact.

I don't see how. Nobody understands God except through an interpreter. Just have to be careful who the interpreter is.

As for OT Judaism, I was taught that OT Judaism developed and became more sophisticated from Leviticus through Kings to the Prophets.

[Immanuel Can]

Netanyahu's propaganda.

Well, it's possible you're right, and Biblically, I think you are...but I wonder how you became the authority on that. It seems to me that modern Jews are the ones to tell us what Modern Judaism "is for." I think there's a fair bit of Modern Judaism that's a huge distance from what OT Judaism was said to be.

He is as much a paradigm of goodness for the modern atheist as He is for believers.

I can't imagine why an Atheist would think he owes ANYTHING to the example or teaching of a person, when Atheism doesn't even provide grounds for any morality at all.

But this far, I can agree with you: the Atheist's refusal to see who Christ is will not protect the Atheist from being morally obligated to bow to His moral authority, nor will it provide even the first line of excuse when the Atheist stands before the God she refused to believe in. So in that sense, Jesus Christ is still the "paradigm of goodness" for all places and times. It's just that the Atheist ends up on the condemned side of that fact.

I don't see how. Nobody understands God except through an interpreter. Just have to be careful who the interpreter is.

What's your evidence for the existence of these privileged "interpreters" of yours? I think they don't exist. I actually think the basics of what God tells us are very, very easy to understand...certainly, anybody can understand this:

"The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36).

How then could an Atheist, who by definition does not believe in the Son at all, be anything but in the second category?