Capitalism is un-Christian.

[taks]

Greed is NOT necessarily evil.

greed is a moral concept and as such, whether or not it is "evil" depends upon individual moral beliefs.

 

adam smith felt that pursuit of individual needs, i.e., greed, ultimately served to benefit the many.

 

taks

[Trenitay]

I wouldn't say that the pursuit of individual needs is greed. It's just making sure you're taken care of. It can go to the point of greed, but it doesn't have to. Greed is the wanting of more past the point of neccesity and luxury.

Edited December 29, 2009 by awsomeness

[Humodour]

Do I NEED this computer game? Am I greedy for WANTING it?

[Trenitay]

I edited it because going past necessity isn't greed. It's when you go to the point of needing more when you're grandchildren are already set for life that it gets greedy.

[lord of flies]

It's been said before and it will be said again. Greed is NOT necessarily evil. It can be better to have greed and progress than generosity and stagnation. It's when greed and stagnation occur at the same time that problems come about.

Incorrect. Greed and progress benefit a privileged minority. Tell the impoverished of Africa, Latin America and Asia that greed is good. Tell the people rotting in urban ghettos, in prisons, tell those who have lost fingers or limbs to the unstoppable machine of institutional greed, that their sacrifices were necessary. I would rather have stagnation than to leave the world as unequal a place (or moreso) as I entered it.

 

Democracy and capitalism were, I believe, never truly reconcilable. Did the two fit together when workers were fed into the factories of the robber barons in the United States or the Third Republic? When the SPD surrendered Germany to an imperialist war? When protesters were shot by police officers or national guardsmen? When the people were left to rot in the cold after economic liberalization overseen by short-sighted "liberators," in Russia and China? When the consumer society finally developed to the point that now politicians are literally selling themselves like products?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Communism and democracy don't mix. After all the first and foremost need for a proper democracy is the freedom of speech and press which every single Communistic country DO NOT HAVE! Hell, even Hugo Chavez has squashed freedom of speech and press in his country, showing that he is no better than a petty dictator.

 

If communism didn't fear the rights such as freedom of speech and the press we wouldn't have had the Tienanmen Square Massacre. NEVER FORGET! NEVER FORGIVE!

[lord of flies]

Communism and democracy don't mix. After all the first and foremost need for a proper democracy is the freedom of speech and press which every single Communistic country DO NOT HAVE! Hell, even Hugo Chavez has squashed freedom of speech and press in his country, showing that he is no better than a petty dictator.

Uh, no. Chavez was elected in free and fair elections. Also, he's not a communist (communists reject parliamentarianism completely).

If communism didn't fear the rights such as freedom of speech and the press we wouldn't have had the Tienanmen Square Massacre. NEVER FORGET! NEVER FORGIVE!

The people at Tienanmen Square were also communists.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Free and fair? I highly doubt that. it was probably as free and fair as the last election in Iran.

 

They were people who wanted change, LoF. People who wanted more freedom than the shackles they were forced to wear under communistic rule. Communism is the enemy of freedom. Always has and always will.

[lord of flies]

Free and fair? I highly doubt that. it was probably as free and fair as the last election in Iran.

Find me one election watch group who agrees with you. Go ahead.

They were people who wanted change, LoF. People who wanted more freedom than the shackles they were forced to wear under communistic rule. Communism is the enemy of freedom. Always has and always will.

Maybe if you repeat it enough, it'll become true.

[Trenitay]

It's been said before and it will be said again. Greed is NOT necessarily evil. It can be better to have greed and progress than generosity and stagnation. It's when greed and stagnation occur at the same time that problems come about.

Incorrect. Greed and progress benefit a privileged minority. Tell the impoverished of Africa, Latin America and Asia that greed is good. Tell the people rotting in urban ghettos, in prisons, tell those who have lost fingers or limbs to the unstoppable machine of institutional greed, that their sacrifices were necessary. I would rather have stagnation than to leave the world as unequal a place (or moreso) as I entered it.

 

Perhaps you didn't read that whole "can be better" part. It's not always and not for everybody. Unfortunately, I can't solve poverty and world hunger. Perhaps you don't understand, but neither can communism. There are limited amounts of resources and money. Even if you could allocate the resources evenly (which you can't) nobody would have enough to live on.

[Istima Loke]

Greed is NOT necessarily evil.

greed is a moral concept and as such, whether or not it is "evil" depends upon individual moral beliefs.

 

...

 

Wait is this a joke? There is no real world definition of the world "evil"? Damn, and I thought that through taks everything would be real world defined, but it seems that the taks-(real world defined) terms are exactly those needed to "prove" what his ideological bias wants him to (I put the word "prove" in quotation marks, since the way taks argues makes it look like he hardly ever even looked at a proof).

 

Oh, and by the way the question whether someone should rape, kill and steal is a matter of one's morality, yet the real world definitions sure do seem to cover the (again real world defined) stealing part of it.

[Guard Dog]

Oops! Looks like your charity was pointless because it didn't benefit the poor!

 

Is that so?

 

http://www.thetowerofhope.org/ They train dogs (including dogs from animal control) to be service animals to the disabled. The animals are trained, vetted and placed for free.

 

http://www.guidingeyes.org/ They train dogs to be seeing eye dogs for the blind. They are trained and placed for free. Many of their alumni are former shelter dogs.

 

http://www.petsfortheelderly.org/ Pays all pet adoption and veterinary expenses so low income elderly people can adopt a companion from an animal shelter

 

And of course I donate $1K to the American Red Cross every year. I'm guessing you hate them too because they support our military.

 

I also volunteer my time and material goods to USMC Toys for Tots and I volunteer at Freedom Farm Animal Sanctuary when I can where I help with rehabilitiation/behaviour modification for dogs used for dog fighting (something I've had a lot of experience with since three of my dogs were rescued from dog fighting operations). I guess buying toys of poor and sick children don't provide any benefit to the poor in your opinion either?

 

I'm sure all of those groups will be glad to hear they do nothing for the poor. The problem with you is arrogance. Any viewpoint other than your own has no merit to you. Small wonder you advocate a totalitarian society where those who disagree are met with death or imprisionment. Your other big problem is ignorance. "You give to dogs!" but it never entered into your mind how that might be a help to someone. You are obviously educated and intelligent but not very wise and without question you are lacking in any real compassion. I'm guessing you are probably just a little young.

 

I find it ironic that you are here throwing out the "Christian" virtues to be found in an economic/governmental system that strips away the most important part of being Christian; Choice, Altruisim, doing right because you choose to do right, because it IS right. I take it by your answer you do not give to any charity at all, not your money, not your time. Since you have your bible out anyway why not look up Matthew 5:7 or Matthew 25:34-40.

 

While we are on the subject, care to offer an opinion on why communist states all over the world and through their history have made it a practice to stamp out and peresecute religious freedom and implement strict enforecement of state athiesim? I mean, since you are here telling us how communisim is in keeping with christianity that seems like a pretty relevant question to me.

[Gorgon]

Becoming Christian is a choice everyone must make for themselves. We do not coerce.

 

Thousands of dead Muslims would like to have a word with you regarding The Crusades... but they can't. Because they're dead.

Of old age or the crusades ?.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Over 2000 years of Christian history there have been points where Christians forced conversions. Hell, there were points where Christian sects tried to coerce conversions to their own sect. For example the Protestant/Catholic conflicts that went on for centuries and still rages on in some portions of the world like Northern Ireland. It has simmered down a bit in recent years, but it was at one point very common to see Christians fighting and killing those who wouldn't join their religious beliefs.

[Gorgon]

yes well, isn't that just stating the obvious. Christianity has a long history, but what is of interest is how it is practiced today.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Practiced today?

 

When I think of Christianity I think of Rev. Phelps and his anti-gay followers. I think of Mr. Rhoeds who killed Dr. Tiller, in his own church, for performing abortions. I think of Pat Robertson and his cronies who said that we deserved the Katrina Hurricane that caused suffering to thousands of people. Christianity hasn't changed much, Gorgon.

[Gorgon]

Mkay, so from the Crusades and the Spanish inquisition to singular acts of lunacy by anti abortionists. That's not 'much'.

 

Sure there is a lot of reactionary conservatism going on, but there are both gay and women priests as well.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I am not just going to forget 2000 years of history just because in recent years that some Christians have changed their tune on matters. If progress continues for another 2000 years then maybe they will make up for the jackholes in the present and the past.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[Lare Kikkeli]

I am not just going to forget 2000 years of history just because in recent years that some Christians have changed their tune on matters. If progress continues for another 2000 years then maybe they will make up for the jackholes in the present and the past.

 

so is this guy pompous or what

[Killian Kalthorne]

Just because I hold a religion and its deity accountable for its followers? If you consider that pompous then, I guess I am.

[Winterwolf]

For example the Protestant/Catholic conflicts that went on for centuries and still rages on in some portions of the world like Northern Ireland.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Northern Ireland is the result of 17th century colonising project. Protestants - colonisers, catholics - natives. Protestant/Catholic in this case marks ethnicity rather than religion. So it's more of an ethnic conflict.

[Mikhailian]

I am not just going to forget 2000 years of history just because in recent years that some Christians have changed their tune on matters. If progress continues for another 2000 years then maybe they will make up for the jackholes in the present and the past.

 

so is this guy pompous or what

I think he's spot on. A couple of decades of acceptable (not even good) behavior, Hardly makes up for all the crap in the past.

[Trenitay]

I don't need to, and have no intention of, making up for some terrible things my religion has done in the past.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Of course not. Its not your fault that you chose to follow a polytheistic religion that has done a great deal of evil in the past which also promotes cannibalism.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Killian Kalthorne

[lord of flies]

Just because I hold a religion and its deity accountable for its followers? If you consider that pompous then, I guess I am.

God isn't real. Religions are just ideas, reinterpreted by fascists and communists alike.

There are limited amounts of resources and money. Even if you could allocate the resources evenly (which you can't) nobody would have enough to live on.

This is incorrect, sorry. There is in fact enough resources to support everybody currently living on this planet, ensuring that they have food, water and shelter. Your yearly wages wouldn't be very good at first (equivalent to a few thousand dollars, IIRC), but at least there wouldn't be any starving Africans.