I Reject, I Affirm. ''Raising the Black Flag'' in an Age of Devilry. - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#15070731
@SolarCross ;

Citation? Your imagination is not a valid source.


Pretty much any Feudal document of the era.


Feudalism is a myth


:eh:

How is Feudalism a ''Myth'', exactly?


but the "Latin Papacy" is hardly different to the Eastern church in ideological terms.


Even to someone entirely lacking in understanding of Christianity, being outside Christianity itself, would see the gigantic difference between the Papacy as an institution and the Orthodox episcopacy.

But then, you deny Feudalism existed so it's like hearing an otherwise normal man say he's a grilled cheese sandwich.



It is all Christianity.


Another bad faith effort on your part-and not the first either-by a non-christian to tell Christians what we should and should not believe, including who we think are excluded as genuine Christian denominations in some circumstances....



Certainly today Christianity is only the world biggest religion on the backs of 1 billion Catholics. Deny them your Christ and you reduce Christianity to a religion of minor importance.


Denying Christ is serious business for all men. And why should I care about what you think of my religion as being of ''minor importance'' or not, exactly?


I am wearing my atheist hat today


Sometimes you do tend to pretend to other belief.



, so I will say I respect your beliefs but it could be that they are both at the same time. People need to eat for sure so if they are going to consume and if they want to consume they should certainly produce something, that is true for cavemen too btw and modern people. We can not live on holy water alone.


And somehow your attack on Marxist Leninists rings particularly hollow now...

The free farmers remained free actually. It was their slaves that were promoted to serfs as a compromise, even that was banned in western europe by the 12th century.


No.
When was serfdom banned by the eastern church?


There is no ''Eastern Church'', and it had nothing to do directly either with it's promulgation or banning in any case, the religious entity you are speaking of.


Was it the 19th century?


No.


I sort of agree, in that it is clear Christianity has played a major role in bans on slavery.


Do you believe in various forms of human servitude/slavery? Why or why not?


Feudalism is not real though, it is purely a modern flight of fancy.


How so?
#15070740
annatar1914 wrote:Pretty much any Feudal document of the era.

For example? Magna Carta? The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? The Golden Bull of Emperor Charles IV? The Salic Law?

Which one did you read.

annatar1914 wrote: :eh:

How is Feudalism a ''Myth'', exactly?

It was made up by modern people who knew nothing at all about medieval life and did not care to find out. It is implied to be a definable belief system or system of practice but it has no properties, no distinct characteristics, no proponents and no adherents. The spoof religion of Jedism or the flying spaghetti monster is more real.

annatar1914 wrote:Even to someone entirely lacking in understanding of Christianity, being outside Christianity itself, would see the gigantic difference between the Papacy as an institution and the Orthodox episcopacy.

Trust me, no one outside of Christianity can see what all the fuss is about. To us your schisms are a bunch of people who believe in a god called jesus being really angry at another bunch of people who also believe in a god called jesus.

annatar1914 wrote:But then, you deny Feudalism existed so it's like hearing an otherwise normal man say he's a grilled cheese sandwich.

Can you point to any medieval book that defines, expands upon or describes, refers to, or advocates feudalism? Even just one?

See you can easily do the equivalent of this for proving the existence of Christianity because beside the bible there are innumerable documents explicitly describing or refering to some aspect of Christianity. You can also do this for Communism, Scientology, Republicanism, Democracy, Buddhism, Islam, Keynesianism, Absolutism, Bonapartism etc. For feudalism there is nothing except the fantasy fiction book written in the 19th century called Ivanhoe.

If you mean to speak of western europeans circa the turn of the last millenium, you can refer to the medieval period in europe or even medieval people in europe (a bit of generalisation but whatever) and be less liable to start making up Ivanhoe like fancies in place of actual factual history.

The medieval period had a fair amount of literacy so we have a lot of real sources to go to find out what life was really like, there is no need to make stuff up.

annatar1914 wrote:Another bad faith effort on your part-and not the first either-by a non-christian to tell Christians what we should and should not believe, including who we think are excluded as genuine Christian denominations in some circumstances....

I am taking self-identifying Christians at their word. I have no reason to doubt them and you have no provided any reason to doubt them on that point. Are you denying that all those billion Catholics believe that they are Christians? Why should i believe you are christian? Just because you say so?

annatar1914 wrote:Denying Christ is serious business for all men. And why should I care about what you think of my religion as being of ''minor importance'' or not, exactly?

Are you disputing the basic fact that Catholicism represent the majority of Christians at this time in history?

annatar1914 wrote:Sometimes you do tend to pretend to other belief.

It is not really a pretence; I just have a complicated, multi-faceted and evolving personal theology.

annatar1914 wrote:And somehow your attack on Marxist Leninists rings particularly hollow now...

Why? Those idiots make everyone starve. They are the worst criminals in history.

annatar1914 wrote:There is no ''Eastern Church'', and it had nothing to do directly either with it's promulgation or banning in any case, the religious entity you are speaking of.

I do not know the proper term for what we in English call the Orthodox church. I thought "eastern" church would not be offensive as it is a simple geographic correlation the same as if I were to call the Catholic church western Christianity.

annatar1914 wrote:Do you believe in various forms of human servitude/slavery? Why or why not?

I am not sure you have phrased that question correctly. You appear to be asking if I think it exists. Of course I recognise that it exists. My guess is that you mean to ask me if I approve of, or condone human slavery? I will try to answer. Firstly although I have a complicated and evolving personal theology, I am an English man and my country and people have been pretty deeply committed to Christianity (as we know it) for longer than most Europeans north of the Alps (The Saxons were among the first western heathen to sign up at around 600AD) so consequently some of that basic (Anglican) Christian sentiment is part of the general framework of my casual morals. My reflexive answer will be a sweet but boringly conventional Anglican sentiment that humans are special and should not be enslaved or humiliated.

If I engage the lower gears of my reason for some extra grunt I think I would acknowledge some kinds of slavery might be morally or pragmatically justifiable, such as forced labour of wrong doers to make compensation to their victims.

Otherwise I would calculate quid pro quo that since I personally would violently object to myself being enslaved then as a matter of tactics I should be against slavery since in a society that allowed it I could not be sure that it would not be done to me even if potentially i might benefit from it too. Simple enlightened self-interest, essentially.

What is your take on slavery?
#15070765
For example? Magna Carta? The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? The Golden Bull of Emperor Charles IV? The Salic Law?

Which one did you read.


Decades ago, I pretty much read all of those and then some, it kind of was my area of particular study.


It was made up by modern people who knew nothing at all about medieval life and did not care to find out.


Proof of this contention of yours?



It is implied to be a definable belief system or system of practice but it has no properties, no distinct characteristics, no proponents and no adherents. The spoof religion of Jedism or the flying spaghetti monster is more real.


Details, or you're just talking out of your ass.

Trust me, no one outside of Christianity can see what all the fuss is about.


So now you speak personally for everyone outside of Christianity? :lol: :eh:



To us your schisms are a bunch of people who believe in a god called jesus being really angry at another bunch of people who also believe in a god called jesus.


Are you one person, or multiple people sharing one account? :excited:


Can you point to any medieval book that defines, expands upon or describes, refers to, or advocates feudalism? Even just one?


Try... All of them?

See you can easily do the equivalent of this for proving the existence of Christianity because beside the bible there are innumerable documents explicitly describing or refering to some aspect of Christianity. You can also do this for Communism, Scientology, Republicanism, Democracy, Buddhism, Islam, Keynesianism, Absolutism, Bonapartism etc. For feudalism there is nothing except the fantasy fiction book written in the 19th century called Ivanhoe.


So your contention is that the idea of Feudalism is entirely made up by Sir Walter Scott in his novel ''Ivanhoe''.... I am honestly at a bit of a loss for words.
If you mean to speak of western europeans circa the turn of the last millenium, you can refer to the medieval period in europe or even medieval people in europe (a bit of generalisation but whatever) and be less liable to start making up Ivanhoe like fancies in place of actual factual history.


A strawman argument, but a rather mad one at that.

The medieval period had a fair amount of literacy so we have a lot of real sources to go to find out what life was really like, there is no need to make stuff up.


Exactly :eh: :roll:

I am taking self-identifying Christians at their word. I have no reason to doubt them and you have no provided any reason to doubt them on that point. Are you denying that all those billion Catholics believe that they are Christians? Why should i believe you are christian? Just because you say so?


Again, not only do you have bias, but you're trying to tell Christians what they should believe and in what manner they should properly express that belief, as a non-Christian.


Are you disputing the basic fact that Catholicism represent the majority of Christians at this time in history?


I'm disputing it's relevance to my conversation.

It is not really a pretence; I just have a complicated, multi-faceted and evolving personal theology.


So you're full of shit, got that, thanks.

Why? Those idiots make everyone starve. They are the worst criminals in history.


I know your particular ''White Whale'' Captain Ahab, take it elsewhere.


I do not know the proper term for what we in English call the Orthodox church. I thought "eastern" church would not be offensive as it is a simple geographic correlation the same as if I were to call the Catholic church western Christianity.


No, it comes from the Roman Catholic term of abuse; ''Eastern Schismatic'', with the implication that Orthodoxy split from the Papal Church and was and is just a regional group of churches schism that has persisted to this day.


I am not sure you have phrased that question correctly. You appear to be asking if I think it exists. Of course I recognise that it exists. My guess is that you mean to ask me if I approve of, or condone human slavery? I will try to answer. Firstly although I have a complicated and evolving personal theology, I am an English man and my country and people have been pretty deeply committed to Christianity (as we know it) for longer than most Europeans north of the Alps (The Saxons were among the first western heathen to sign up at around 600AD) so consequently some of that basic (Anglican) Christian sentiment is part of the general framework of my casual morals. My reflexive answer will be a sweet but boringly conventional Anglican sentiment that humans are special and should not be enslaved or humiliated.


Yes or no questions are pretty straightforward, capable of straightforward answers.

If I engage the lower gears of my reason for some extra grunt I think I would acknowledge some kinds of slavery might be morally or pragmatically justifiable, such as forced labour of wrong doers to make compensation to their victims.

Otherwise I would calculate quid pro quo that since I personally would violently object to myself being enslaved then as a matter of tactics I should be against slavery since in a society that allowed it I could not be sure that it would not be done to me even if potentially i might benefit from it too. Simple enlightened self-interest, essentially.


Some things are wrong always and everywhere at all times.

What is your take on slavery?


It's wrong.

Ok... So let that be the end of it.
#15070803
annatar1914 wrote:Sure, it would have been great had Tsar Nicholas adopted the program of Socialism, mobilized the whole country, declared a ceasefire with the Central Powers, etc... But he and his whole reactionary crew were incapable of it. In order to sign Brest-Litovsk, one had to have had the people willing to negotiate and sign Brest-Litovsk in power to do it. And the culmination of Tsar Peter's attempts at westernization bore their final fruit in Bolshevism.

Wherever socialism and communism has been tried, they has never worked. However, capitalism has worked and Jesus told a couple of parables about capitalism working.

The dictionary defines capitalism as “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.” While the Bible doesn’t mention capitalism by name, it does speak a great deal about economic issues.

In Genesis 1:28, God says we are to subdue the earth and have dominion over it. One aspect of this is that humans can own property in which they can exercise their dominion. Since we have both volition and private property rights, we can assume that we should have the freedom to exchange these private property rights in a free market where goods and services can be exchanged.

Historically, capitalism has had a number of advantages. It has liberated economic potential. It has also provided the foundation for a great deal of political and economic freedom. When government is not controlling markets, then there is economic freedom to be involved in an array of entrepreneurial activities. Capitalism has also led to a great deal of political freedom, because once we limit the role of government in economics, we limit the scope of government in other areas. It is no accident that most of the countries with the greatest political freedom usually have a great deal of economic freedom.

Though there are some valid economic criticisms of capitalism such as monopolies and the byproduct of pollution, these can be controlled by limited governmental control. And when capitalism is wisely controlled, it generates significant economic prosperity and economic freedom for its people.

One of the major moral arguments against capitalism is greed, which is why many Christians feel unsure about the free enterprise system. Critics of capitalism contend that this system makes people greedy. But then we must ask whether capitalism makes people greedy or do we already have greedy people who use the economic freedom of the capitalistic system to achieve their ends? In light of the biblical description of human nature (Jeremiah 17:9), the latter seems more likely. Because people are sinful and selfish, some are going to use the capitalist system to satisfy their greed. But that is not so much a criticism of capitalism as it is a realization of the human condition. The goal of capitalism is not to change bad people but to protect us from them. Capitalism is a system in which bad people can do the least harm and good people have the freedom to do good works. Capitalism works best with moral individuals. But it also functions adequately with selfish and greedy people.

Though greed is sometimes evident in the capitalist system, we have to understand it’s not because of the system—it’s because greed is part of man’s sinful nature. The solution lies not in changing the economic system but in changing the heart of man through the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

https://www.gotquestions.org/capitalism-Bible.html
#15070864
SolarCross wrote:So you can provide a citation. I am still waiting.


This is quite insane. It rests upon a particular theorists shoulders to disprove something, not upon someone in a thread which is only slightly related to it to do so for you :eh:

For one thing, Adam Smith cites numerous works to support the idea that Capitalism has arisen from the rise of the Bourgeoisie in the Middle Ages, and the various legislative acts of the French Revolution to abolish various Feudal duties, taxes, corvees, etc... Guizot's ''History of Civilization'' and so forth... Should be sufficient in themselves, there's a wealth of information out there.

So run along and post a thread about how the idea of Feudalism was invented by Sir Walter Scott in ''Ivanhoe''.
#15070867
@Hindsite ; you said;

Wherever socialism and communism has been tried, they has never worked.


Proof? And define ''worked''. By what yardstick would you measure ''success''?



However, capitalism has worked


Again, proof? And again, by what yardstick would you measure ''success''?


and Jesus told a couple of parables about capitalism working.


Quote them, and show where Our Lord is talking about ''capitalism'' working, when it didn't even exist during His Incarnation.

The dictionary defines capitalism as “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.” While the Bible doesn’t mention capitalism by name, it does speak a great deal about economic issues.

In Genesis 1:28, God says we are to subdue the earth and have dominion over it. One aspect of this is that humans can own property in which they can exercise their dominion. Since we have both volition and private property rights, we can assume that we should have the freedom to exchange these private property rights in a free market where goods and services can be exchanged.

Historically, capitalism has had a number of advantages. It has liberated economic potential. It has also provided the foundation for a great deal of political and economic freedom. When government is not controlling markets, then there is economic freedom to be involved in an array of entrepreneurial activities. Capitalism has also led to a great deal of political freedom, because once we limit the role of government in economics, we limit the scope of government in other areas. It is no accident that most of the countries with the greatest political freedom usually have a great deal of economic freedom.

Though there are some valid economic criticisms of capitalism such as monopolies and the byproduct of pollution, these can be controlled by limited governmental control. And when capitalism is wisely controlled, it generates significant economic prosperity and economic freedom for its people.

One of the major moral arguments against capitalism is greed, which is why many Christians feel unsure about the free enterprise system. Critics of capitalism contend that this system makes people greedy. But then we must ask whether capitalism makes people greedy or do we already have greedy people who use the economic freedom of the capitalistic system to achieve their ends? In light of the biblical description of human nature (Jeremiah 17:9), the latter seems more likely. Because people are sinful and selfish, some are going to use the capitalist system to satisfy their greed. But that is not so much a criticism of capitalism as it is a realization of the human condition. The goal of capitalism is not to change bad people but to protect us from them. Capitalism is a system in which bad people can do the least harm and good people have the freedom to do good works. Capitalism works best with moral individuals. But it also functions adequately with selfish and greedy people.

Though greed is sometimes evident in the capitalist system, we have to understand it’s not because of the system—it’s because greed is part of man’s sinful nature. The solution lies not in changing the economic system but in changing the heart of man through the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

https://www.gotquestions.org/capitalism-Bible.html


Don't give me ''copypasta'', Hindsite, unless you prepared to defend every single thing these shills and hirelings have said, point by point.
#15070870
@annatar1914
annatar1914 wrote:People were recorded as economic units.

This is the claim you made about "feudalism" (medieval western europe presumably), for which I asked for a citation. You do not have one still, so let's just accept this as a false claim and move on. To err is human after all, no one expects you get everything right.
#15070888
The dictionary defines capitalism as “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.” While the Bible doesn’t mention capitalism by name, it does speak a great deal about economic issues.

The dictionary definition is essentially correct. There are two main pillars of any capitalist economic system - (1) the private ownership of the means of production, and (2) the investment of capital for profit. In most ancient civilisations, the state would own a substantial fraction of the means of production, and would organise the building of irrigation systems, sewage systems and the like. But it is the second pillar which is the most unusual, historically speaking. In the late Roman Empire, for example, the ruling elite would not invest their wealth, they would consume it. After all, if they needed more money they could just loot another province. This is why there was no Industrial Revolution in the late Roman Empire, despite most of the elements for it being in place - a landless peasantry which had drifted to the cities in search of work. The ruling elite were simply not willing to invest their wealth in factories or economic production. This only came much later, from the 18th century onwards, long after the Roman Empire had vanished. It is for this reason that we do not speak about capitalism existing in the time of Jesus, because it didn't. It has existed only from the early modern period onwards.
#15070890
SolarCross wrote:@annatar1914

This is the claim you made about "feudalism" (medieval western europe presumably), for which I asked for a citation. You do not have one still, so let's just accept this as a false claim and move on. To err is human after all, no one expects you get everything right.


Bullshit. I told you basically that I had not one but many citations, and you fell back on your odd claim about ''Ivanhoe''. One example would be the ''Domesday Book'', but naming one as a ''Serf'', a ''Villain'', a Peasant, etc... Is naming them for purposes of economic recording; ''my manor has 15 Serfs'' is an economic statement.
#15070892
Potemkin wrote:The dictionary definition is essentially correct. There are two main pillars of any capitalist economic system - (1) the private ownership of the means of production, and (2) the investment of capital for profit. In most ancient civilisations, the state would own a substantial fraction of the means of production, and would organise the building of irrigation systems, sewage systems and the like. But it is the second pillar which is the most unusual, historically speaking. In the late Roman Empire, for example, the ruling elite would not invest their wealth, they would consume it. After all, if they needed more money they could just loot another province. This is why there was no Industrial Revolution in the late Roman Empire, despite most of the elements for it being in place - a landless peasantry which had drifted to the cities in search of work. The ruling elite were simply not willing to invest their wealth in factories or economic production. This only came much later, from the 18th century onwards, long after the Roman Empire had vanished. It is for this reason that we do not speak about capitalism existing in the time of Jesus, because it didn't. It has existed only from the early modern period onwards.


We're gradually getting back to that pre-Industrial thinking with the Elites in my opinion, by the way. They've degenerated more and more into what Thorsten Veblen talked about; ''conspicuous consumption'' and looting, primitive accumulation.
#15070904
annatar1914 wrote:Bullshit. I told you basically that I had not one but many citations, and you fell back on your odd claim about ''Ivanhoe''. One example would be the ''Domesday Book'', but naming one as a ''Serf'', a ''Villain'', a Peasant, etc... Is naming them for purposes of economic recording; ''my manor has 15 Serfs'' is an economic statement.

Until now you did not provide any. Saying you have them but keeping them to yourself is not providing a citation.

Finally, after much teeth pulling, you offer us the Doomsday book, thanks for that. It is of course a very interesting book, a census of all the landowners and what they owned. Indeed this survey of England made 20 years after King William obtained ownership of England through his conquest does mention that 10% of people in England were slaves. Ok.

From wiki:
According to the Domesday Book census, over 10% of England's population in 1086 were slaves.[14] In 1102, the Church Council of London convened by Anselm issued a decree: "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals."[15] However, the Council had no legislative powers, and no act of law was valid unless signed by the monarch.

The influence of the new Norman aristocracy led to the decline of slavery in England. Contemporary writers noted that the Scottish and Welsh took captives as slaves during raids, a practice which was no longer common in England by the 12th century. However, by the start of the 13th century references to people being taken as slaves stopped. While there was no legislation against slavery and Wales,[16] William the Conqueror introduced a law preventing the sale of slaves overseas.[17] According to historian John Gillingham, by about 1200 slavery in the British Isles was non-existent.

So what I said was true.
#15070966
Until now you did not provide any. Saying you have them but keeping them to yourself is not providing a citation.

Finally, after much teeth pulling, you offer us the Doomsday book, thanks for that.


What I basically said was that anything written of note in that era proves that Feudalism was a going concern. :eh:



It is of course a very interesting book, a census of all the landowners and what they owned. Indeed this survey of England made 20 years after King William obtained ownership of England through his conquest does mention that 10% of people in England were slaves. Ok.


And most of the rest were reduced to unfree labor of various types. Compared to Slavery almost a distinction without a real difference.
From wiki:
According to the Domesday Book census, over 10% of England's population in 1086 were slaves.[14] In 1102, the Church Council of London convened by Anselm issued a decree: "Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals."[15] However, the Council had no legislative powers, and no act of law was valid unless signed by the monarch.

The influence of the new Norman aristocracy led to the decline of slavery in England. Contemporary writers noted that the Scottish and Welsh took captives as slaves during raids, a practice which was no longer common in England by the 12th century. However, by the start of the 13th century references to people being taken as slaves stopped. While there was no legislation against slavery and Wales,[16] William the Conqueror introduced a law preventing the sale of slaves overseas.[17] According to historian John Gillingham, by about 1200 slavery in the British Isles was non-existent.

So what I said was true.


What you said was that Feudalism didn't exist, so it wasn't true at all. Look, what this comes down to is the Un-freedom for most under Feudalism, as with under conditions of Slavery in the Ancient World. When someone owns the time and use of your labor, they own you. Even if it's for wages of some kind as under today's Capitalism, they own you or else you and your family( if you have any) would be under very dire conditions to say the least.

And Feudalism of a sort is showing signs of returning.
#15070970
annatar1914 wrote:What I basically said was that anything written of note in that era proves that Feudalism was a going concern. :eh:

You are getting muddled. I asked for a citation for the strange statement that you made that under "feudalism" (an as yet undefined ideology or practice), people were valued as livestock / were recorded as economic units. You failed repeatedly to disclose a source for claim outside of your imagination until finally under my insistence you name dropped the Doomsday book. A book that has no references to serfs at all because the status was not invented until after slavery had been banned which only started in England some decades after the Doomsday book was compiled. The Doomsday book is an accounting of the last days of the Saxon rule as it occurred only 20 years after the Conquest. The Saxons did not have serfs because they had slaves.

You also never did point to an actual real source that would define, refer to, expand upon, identify proponents or adherents of this "feudalism". It would be nice if you could at least define it or describe this notional ideology? I am sure you could easily do this for any other -ism even if it was a slanted and biased view.

annatar1914 wrote:And most of the rest were reduced to unfree labor of various types. Compared to Slavery almost a distinction without a real difference.

Only a tiny minority were slaves before slavery was banned. Those that were persuaded to free their slaves attempted to keep them on as obligated but waged workers, and this was serfdom. But this only affected slaves and in England only for another century or so. The medieval period (I must assume you are using the basically fictional concept of "feudalism" as a synonym for that arbitrary range of dates we in modern times call the medieval period because as yet no one who apparently believes in it is willing to define or describe it at all.) was not a particularly bad time for forced labour as I have shown. Even before the Christian kings succeeded in banning it under the advice of the Church only a tiny minority of individuals had this status. Eg: the doomsday book confirms only 10% were slaves.

A completely undefined and undescribed thing may or may not exist, we will never know until someone actually would like to come forward and do that.

annatar1914 wrote:What you said was that Feudalism didn't exist, so it wasn't true at all. Look, what this comes down to is the Un-freedom for most under Feudalism, as with under conditions of Slavery in the Ancient World. When someone owns the time and use of your labor, they own you. Even if it's for wages of some kind as under today's Capitalism, they own you or else you and your family( if you have any) would be under very dire conditions to say the least.

And Feudalism of a sort is showing signs of returning.


I am sure we should take your feelings of imaginary signs of an imaginary and undefined ideology / practice / institution / or whatever it is supposed to be as an ominious portent of imaginary things to come! Indeed I will endeavour stand alert for any such undefined things to come!
Last edited by SolarCross on 01 Mar 2020 00:13, edited 1 time in total.
#15070972
SolarCross wrote:I am sure we should take your feelings of imaginary signs of an imaginary and undefined ideology / practice / institution / or whatever it is supposed to be as an ominious portent of imaginary things to come! Indeed I will endeavour stand alert for any such undefined things to come!


On that enlightening note, maybe you should just sit this particular thread out. My head hurts. You wouldn't like me when my head starts hurting.

Fucking mad-dogs and Englishmen...
#15070995
annatar1914 wrote:Proof? And define ''worked''. By what yardstick would you measure ''success''?

Again, proof? And again, by what yardstick would you measure ''success''?

Quote them, and show where Our Lord is talking about ''capitalism'' working, when it didn't even exist during His Incarnation.

There is no doubt that every attempt to introduce socialism anywhere has led to dictatorship and economic ruin. It is as plain as day that socialism rapidly leads to a major reduction in living standards and a lack of freedoms for the general public. One recent proof is the Venezuelan economy. The breakup of the Soviet Union is proof that communism has similar problems. The success of the United States has proven the superiority of capitalism to provide both individual freedom and economic success.

Two examples of parables concerning capitalism are the Parable of Laborers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-15) in which the owner of a vineyard hires workers and pays them wages at the end of their labor and the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) which praises investing to make profits.
#15071006
@Hindsite


There is no doubt that every attempt to introduce socialism anywhere has led to dictatorship and economic ruin.


Every attempt to introduce socialism anywhere has led to counter-revolutionary dictatorship against socialism and economic ruin .

It is as plain as day that socialism rapidly leads to a major reduction in living standards and a lack of freedoms for the general public.


Not so. I know people who lived through it, with free education, healthcare, utilities, full employment, retirement and disability pensions, cheap affordable food and transportation, regular long vacations, and a number of other benefits. They definitely miss that. And as far as ''freedom'' goes, they believed themselves to be the freest people in the world, just as we Americans believe we are...



One recent proof is the Venezuelan economy.


Which isn't Socialist.


The breakup of the Soviet Union is proof that communism has similar problems.


The break-up of the Soviet Union was the work of traitors from within. If you had bothered watching videos which I distinctly remember putting in some earlier thread replies to you, you'd have known that.


The success of the United States has proven the superiority of capitalism to provide both individual freedom and economic success.


The United States accomplishes a lot, nobody ever denied that. But at a terrible cost both for Americans and Non-Americans alike.

Two examples of parables concerning capitalism are the Parable of Laborers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-15) in which the owner of a vineyard hires workers and pays them wages at the end of their labor and the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) which praises investing to make profits.


God forbid, they do no such thing!

Those Parables concern God's Grace and the Mystery of His giving of salvation to some instead of others, not a praising of Capitalism which if you paid attention to what @Potemkin said you'd know also, that for one thing Capitalism didn't even exist until 150-200 years ago. Christ was Incarnate over 2000 years ago and Slavery was the primary mode of economic production.

I'm sorry to say but you're really arrogant about not paying attention to information others give you, because it seems like you think you already know all the answers. Well, you don't.
#15071008
annatar1914 wrote:Those Parables concern God's Grace and the Mystery of His giving of salvation to some instead of others, not a praising of Capitalism which if you paid attention to what @Potemkin said you'd know also, that for one thing Capitalism didn't even exist until 150-200 years ago. Christ was Incarnate over 2000 years ago and Slavery was the primary mode of economic production.

I'm sorry to say but you're really arrogant about not paying attention to information others give you, because it seems like you think you already know all the answers. Well, you don't.

It seems to me that you are the arrogant one to just dismiss the truth and cling to false propaganda and expect others to do the same.
#15071011
Hindsite wrote:It seems to me that you are the arrogant one to just dismiss the truth and cling to false propaganda and expect others to do the same.


@Hindsite

Is it false ''propaganda'' for me to actually just listen to people who really lived their lives in the Soviet Union and listen to how they described both good things and bad things that happened back then and said they still even then had better lives during the time of the Soviet Union? :eh:

And these weren't Atheists either, but Christians, who hated the Godlessness of the officials. One woman told me how the Bolsheviks came and burned down the church in her village, and her mother rushed in to save an Icon of Jesus Christ from the flames, but that woman also said her life was better during the time of the USSR, how everybody worked better together for the common good, instead of now where they selfishly chase money like people in the West....

All you're doing is projecting. Nobody can tell you anything if you've already made your mind up, can they?
#15071013
annatar1914 wrote:@Hindsite

Is it false ''propaganda'' for me to actually just listen to people who really lived their lives in the Soviet Union and listen to how they described both good things and bad things that happened back then and said they still even then had better lives during the time of the Soviet Union? :eh:

And these weren't Atheists either, but Christians, who hated the Godlessness of the officials. One woman told me how the Bolsheviks came and burned down the church in her village, and her mother rushed in to save an Icon of Jesus Christ from the flames, but that woman also said her life was better during the time of the USSR, how everybody worked better together for the common good, instead of now where they selfishly chase money like people in the West....

All you're doing is projecting. Nobody can tell you anything if you've already made your mind up, can they?

No, so don't try to tell me propaganda coming from socialism and communism, because I have my mind made up in support of capitalism.
Praise the Lord.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 22

Has any President in US history had to go into hi[…]

I think the answer should be yes. I trust there […]

It is time for Biden to step aside

Really? Which medical school did you attend? […]

Trump and Russiagate

Sanders brands himself a Democratic socialist F[…]