Why do so many people hate capitalism?

I find it funny that you defend the rich so much knowing jesus does not approve of people being rich.

Republican Jesus ftl.

TopTierHustler

He did not approve of living a life dedicated to being rich, a life where you did not care or use the gifts God gave you. Notice that the apostles who knew Jesus more so than you ever will, accepted wealthy people into the church. Dedicated men who were willing to expel people who made offense to the church or abused it, like Simon Magus. No, Jesus was not a republican. He wasn't a democrat. Jesus did not advocate taxing others to bring about social change. He advocated the individual doing something of their own accord.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"] You realize that even the most conservative economists agree that a low and stable amount of inflation is beneficial for an economy, right?Abbeten

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]I'm sure Jesus wasnt stupid enough to think that people voluntarily giving to charity is the solution to creating a just society.kuraimen

"My Kingdom is not of this World" - Jesus Christ.

If you want to create a utopia. Go ahead and try. You'll fail. But nobody is stopping you.

Jesus did NOT say anywhere that Rome should forcibly seize all production and redistribute it to make your 'just society'.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

Personally I would have thought that Jesus would want people to help the poor because they want to and because it's the right thing to do, not have the goverment forcibly take and redistribute against everyone's will.

Neoklondiak

"My Kingdom is not of this World" - Jesus Christ.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"] I find it funny that you defend the rich so much knowing jesus does not approve of people being rich.

Republican Jesus ftl.

Philokalia

He did not approve of living a life dedicated to being rich, a life where you did not care or use the gifts God gave you. Notice that the apostles who knew Jesus more so than you ever will, accepted wealthy people into the church. Dedicated men who were willing to expel people who made offense to the church or abused it, like Simon Magus. No, Jesus was not a republican. He wasn't a democrat. Jesus did not advocate taxing others to bring about social change. He advocated the individual doing something of their own accord.

Funny how you defend that sin though lulz.

Republican Jesus.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

Personally I would have thought that Jesus would want people to help the poor because they want to and because it's the right thing to do, not have the goverment forcibly take and redistribute against everyone's will.

Neoklondiak

"My Kingdom is not of this World" - Jesus Christ.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Jesus wouldn't approve what's happening in Africa the continent that receives the most charity in the world is also the one with the biggest problems. Charity doesn't resolve problems, social justice does.Philokalia

For the longest time in history it was Christians and hte church which did more to help the world than any government did. the Church operated hospitals for lepers. It saved children who were abandoned to infanticide. It brought love into a social world which was cold and pagan. and the churches continue to do this now and not at the expense of the people around them. Not forcing people to donate. The government will not solve the worlds problems.

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]I'm sure Jesus wasnt stupid enough to think that people voluntarily giving to charity is the solution to creating a just society.BossPerson

"My Kingdom is not of this World" - Jesus Christ.

See bolded blue.

Still a sin and a big one at that on top of him advocating for helping the poor, which would be medicare and Social security in todays world.

Funny how you defend that sin though lulz.

Republican Jesus.

TopTierHustler

It is not a sin. Again where did Jesus advocate the government solving our problems? Where did say to the jews to go to Ceaser? To establish their own government? Again your anacrhonising your socialistic agenda onto a popular ancient figure in an attempt to legitimize or deligitimize the people who believe in him.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

"My Kingdom is not of this World" - Jesus Christ.

Neoklondiak

If you want to create a utopia. Go ahead and try. You'll fail. But nobody is stopping you.

Jesus did NOT say anywhere that Rome should forcibly seize all production and redistribute it to make your 'just society'.

[QUOTE="Philokalia"]

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"] I find it funny that you defend the rich so much knowing jesus does not approve of people being rich.

Republican Jesus ftl.

TopTierHustler

He did not approve of living a life dedicated to being rich, a life where you did not care or use the gifts God gave you. Notice that the apostles who knew Jesus more so than you ever will, accepted wealthy people into the church. Dedicated men who were willing to expel people who made offense to the church or abused it, like Simon Magus. No, Jesus was not a republican. He wasn't a democrat. Jesus did not advocate taxing others to bring about social change. He advocated the individual doing something of their own accord.

Funny how you defend that sin though lulz.

Republican Jesus.

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] So are we supposed to pass on having a just society because of what's gonna happen after we die? what a lousy deal. I think it's more important to deal with things in THIS world right now and prevent people from suffering as much as we can than to wait for death and expect one of the million faiths this world has to be correct. Some of those faiths in fact say that heaven and hell are here on Earth, we just choose to make this world one way or the other.kuraimen

If you want to create a utopia. Go ahead and try. You'll fail. But nobody is stopping you.

Jesus did NOT say anywhere that Rome should forcibly seize all production and redistribute it to make your 'just society'.

You guys are the ones trying to politicize Jesus, not me.

Oh lord...these capitalist christians. talk about cognitive dissonance....

Praise Jesus one second and condemn socialism the next.....

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"] Still a sin and a big one at that on top of him advocating for helping the poor, which would be medicare and Social security in todays world.

Funny how you defend that sin though lulz.

Republican Jesus.

Philokalia

It is not a sin. Again where did Jesus advocate the government solving our problems? Where did say to the jews to go to Ceaser? To establish their own government? Again your anacrhonising your socialistic agenda onto a popular ancient figure in an attempt to legitimize or deligitimize the people who believe in him.

He advocated giving to the poor and giving up possessions.

Charity obviously doesn't work so I guess that means gov't.

Republican Jesus lol

Oh lord...these capitalist christians. talk about cognitive dissonance....

Praise Jesus one second and condemn socialism the next.....

BossPerson

You've got to be f ucking kidding me.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Oh lord...these capitalist christians. talk about cognitive dissonance....

Praise Jesus one second and condemn socialism the next.....

Neoklondiak

You've got to be f ucking kidding me.

Oh lord...these capitalist christians. talk about cognitive dissonance....

Praise Jesus one second and condemn socialism the next.....

BossPerson

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

If you want to create a utopia. Go ahead and try. You'll fail. But nobody is stopping you.

Jesus did NOT say anywhere that Rome should forcibly seize all production and redistribute it to make your 'just society'.

Neoklondiak

You guys are the ones trying to politicize Jesus, not me.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Oh lord...these capitalist christians. talk about cognitive dissonance....

Praise Jesus one second and condemn socialism the next.....

kuraimen

So we should just break the 8th and 10th commandments?

Christian missionaries also destroyed entire cultures and languages, spread diseases from the "civilized world" to indigenous populations helping obliterate them, destroyed entire libraries of knowledge from ancient civilizations, murdered people in inquisitions for thinking differently from the Bible, made people pay taxes for Kings in the name of God condemning them to poverty, focused on preaching about the evilness of condoms while millions of people starve in Africa due to overpopulation and the other half gets infected with AIDS, put women on positions of submission under men, etc. Christianity hasn't been such a nice contribution to humanity. No doubt there are good Christians out there and those I respect but there has been as much or probably more acts of goodness by people with other or no faiths at all around the world and without all the nasty stuff Christianity brings. The difference is that nobody keeps close track on them.kuraimen

I would argue it was more or less british government that did that, not the missionaries who merely accompanied them as if they had all the authority. I assume this is what you are speaking about right? Now as for entire libraries being destroyed, IM not sure about this. Do you mean the Library of alexandria? Which had been attacked and burned many times over the centuries and there seemed not to be a clear Christian motivation for doing so. Rather on the contrary it was Christians in the most ancient libraries that preserved texts. The classical texts that is. The monks were the ones we should be thankful to. It was the learned Greek Orthodox Christians that brought with them in the destruction of Constantinople to the west the classical texts which helped build the enlightenment period. although I would hazard to say it was hardly an enlightenment.

And really you would bring up the crusades and inquisition? Think about this way. THe Crusades were fighting against the Muslims, in trying to recapture the holy land. and the efforts by the first crusaders and by people like Charles Martel are what stopped Islam I would say from actually invading the western world and making it sharia in which case you and your opinions would not exist. Now I feel no need to respond to the supposed "badstuff" as I can;t solely attribute any of that badstuff to Christianity, but rather individuals and governments. It wasn't the church that initiated the inqusition it was queen Isabella, and the results of this are highly overblown in popular internet myths which I am sure you believe in. Just a moment ago I had someone tell me that millions of people died in it, this was not the case and it is a common myth. Im no expert on these things, but I think that people who claim these events as examples of the evils of Christianity don't fully grasp what is basically true about them.

Christianity brought more good than evil. Its what influences you today, the pagan world view if it persisted would never have allowed for the common understanding that we have today, on basic things. That there is good and evil, that certain actions are wrong. You have Judaism and Christianity to thank for alot of your moral sensibilities. but this is completely off the track (as I think you intended to be) from what I meant.

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] He didn't say we shouldn't either...kuraimen

You guys are the ones trying to politicize Jesus, not me.

If you want to look at it that way then sure. He did not advocate socialism anywhere though. So knock it off.

Heck, why do you even care?

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="LOXO7"] How do you call what the Fed and the government do is stable beneficial inflation? We don't have either low or stable inflation. The market crash of 1929 happened because of what is happening today. That crash was a sign of an honest economy. We don't have a "crash" today, but instead we call them recessions. The economy wants to crash, but these two identities are holding it up. And everyone is kidding themselves that everything is okay, it's beneficial, it's healthy.LOXO7

Remember the whole rich people can't get into heaven thing? lol

He advocated giving to the poor and giving up possessions.

Charity obviously doesn't work so I guess that means gov't.

Republican Jesus lol

TopTierHustler

Right he advocated private people giving up their possessions, not the government compelling people to do so. As for the richman not being able to get into heaven, it doesnt say not able it says it would be extremely difficult and its not hard to imagine why in that context. That the rich often did not care in this point in time of the people below them. They had a world view which was fundamentally different from our own.

But Charity by Christians has workd throughout the centuries. And was one of the major forces in what allowed Christinaity to become a dominant religion. Instead of focusing on only the strong, Christians focused on the weak. They did not throw away their children to the wilds like the pagans did. They did not let the lepers merely die without treatment. They faced death in the face of persecution. These are all factors and things you would neglect.

Again a republican Jesus did not exist. You are obviously attempting to say this to mock me. But Im not republican. Im not a United States Citizen. Im not apart of any political party. So why continue to say it? For a cheap laugh? Well if you want to deligimatize your position, thats fine. It just shows the ignorance you possess.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

You guys are the ones trying to politicize Jesus, not me.

Neoklondiak

If you want to look at it that way then sure. He did not advocate socialism anywhere though. So knock it off.

Heck, why do you even care?

Between socialism and capitalism, which system do you think he would prefer? How about this, would he rather have the world shaped in the mold of a place like Sweden and Finland (which still arent even socialist) or a place like Hong Kong or the US? BossPerson

He would advocate his own kingdom first and foremost and position as king and ruler.

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Jesus is pretty much a political figure. You can't separate politics from stuff about morals and a worldview. It's all connected. The principles of your faith will be reflected in your political affiliations no doubt.BossPerson

If you want to look at it that way then sure. He did not advocate socialism anywhere though. So knock it off.

Heck, why do you even care?

How am I suppose to know? And why do we even care?

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

If you want to look at it that way then sure. He did not advocate socialism anywhere though. So knock it off.

Heck, why do you even care?

Neoklondiak

How am I suppose to know? And why do we even care?

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Between socialism and capitalism, which system do you think he would prefer? How about this, would he rather have the world shaped in the mold of a place like Sweden and Finland (which still arent even socialist) or a place like Hong Kong or the US? Philokalia

He would advocate his own kingdom first and foremost and position as king and ruler.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Christian missionaries also destroyed entire cultures and languages, spread diseases from the "civilized world" to indigenous populations helping obliterate them, destroyed entire libraries of knowledge from ancient civilizations, murdered people in inquisitions for thinking differently from the Bible, made people pay taxes for Kings in the name of God condemning them to poverty, focused on preaching about the evilness of condoms while millions of people starve in Africa due to overpopulation and the other half gets infected with AIDS, put women on positions of submission under men, etc. Christianity hasn't been such a nice contribution to humanity. No doubt there are good Christians out there and those I respect but there has been as much or probably more acts of goodness by people with other or no faiths at all around the world and without all the nasty stuff Christianity brings. The difference is that nobody keeps close track on them.Philokalia

I would argue it was more or less british government that did that, not the missionaries who merely accompanied them as if they had all the authority. I assume this is what you are speaking about right? Now as for entire libraries being destroyed, IM not sure about this. Do you mean the Library of alexandria? Which had been attacked and burned many times over the centuries and there seemed not to be a clear Christian motivation for doing so. Rather on the contrary it was Christians in the most ancient libraries that preserved texts. The classical texts that is. The monks were the ones we should be thankful to. It was the learned Greek Orthodox Christians that brought with them in the destruction of Constantinople to the west the classical texts which helped build the enlightenment period. although I would hazard to say it was hardly an enlightenment.

And really you would bring up the crusades and inquisition? Think about this way. THe Crusades were fighting against the Muslims, in trying to recapture the holy land. and the efforts by the first crusaders and by people like Charles Martel are what stopped Islam I would say from actually invading the western world and making it sharia in which case you and your opinions would not exist. Now I feel no need to respond to the supposed "badstuff" as I can;t solely attribute any of that badstuff to Christianity, but rather individuals and governments. It wasn't the church that initiated the inqusition it was queen Isabella, and the results of this are highly overblown in popular internet myths which I am sure you believe in. Just a moment ago I had someone tell me that millions of people died in it, this was not the case and it is a common myth. Im no expert on these things, but I think that people who claim these events as examples of the evils of Christianity don't fully grasp what is basically true about them.

Christianity brought more good than evil. Its what influences you today, the pagan world view if it persisted would never have allowed for the common understanding that we have today, on basic things. That there is good and evil, that certain actions are wrong. You have Judaism and Christianity to thank for alot of your moral sensibilities. but this is completely off the track (as I think you intended to be) from what I meant.

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Between socialism and capitalism, which system do you think he would prefer? How about this, would he rather have the world shaped in the mold of a place like Sweden and Finland (which still arent even socialist) or a place like Hong Kong or the US? BossPerson

How am I suppose to know? And why do we even care?

I did answer. I can't see the hearts of people so how would I know?

And no it's not hypocritical to be Christian and not advocate the forced redistribution of wealth.

Sorry but this is weak. If God exists, maybe he'll tell you about politics some day.

[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]Remember the whole rich people can't get into heaven thing? lol

He advocated giving to the poor and giving up possessions.

Charity obviously doesn't work so I guess that means gov't.

Republican Jesus lol

Philokalia

Right he advocated private people giving up their possessions, not the government compelling people to do so. As for the richman not being able to get into heaven, it doesnt say not able it says it would be extremely difficult and its not hard to imagine why in that context. That the rich often did not care in this point in time of the people below them. They had a world view which was fundamentally different from our own.

But Charity by Christians has workd throughout the centuries. And was one of the major forces in what allowed Christinaity to become a dominant religion. Instead of focusing on only the strong, Christians focused on the weak. They did not throw away their children to the wilds like the pagans did. They did not let the lepers merely die without treatment. They faced death in the face of persecution. These are all factors and things you would neglect.

Again a republican Jesus did not exist. You are obviously attempting to say this to mock me. But Im not republican. Im not a United States Citizen. Im not apart of any political party. So why continue to say it? For a cheap laugh? Well if you want to deligimatize your position, thats fine. It just shows the ignorance you possess.

Christian Charity helps, but it's never been enough, and it still doesn't change that being rich is both a sin and that jesus advocated People to give up their positions.

I think republican Jesus is what alot of people do seem to follow; embodying bigotry, love for the rich, and picking and choosing what to believe contrary to what he did believe and whether you are american, your posts have made you sound like you do follow something similar: defending the rich tooth and nail no matter what they do, advocating against gay marriage no matter how nonsensical your arguments or how poorly you understand certain pasages.

Yeah, you follow republican Jesus.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

How am I suppose to know? And why do we even care?

Neoklondiak

I did answer. I can't see the hearts of people so how would I know?

And no it's not hypocritical to be Christian and not advocate the forced redistribution of wealth.

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]If you had to put your money somewhere. By not answering, we all know what you're thinking.And its important because of hypocrisy of republicans and religious conservatives who praise Jesus one minute, then Paul Ryan the next. BossPerson

I did answer. I can't see the hearts of people so how would I know?

And no it's not hypocritical to be Christian and not advocate the forced redistribution of wealth.

I'd flip and coin and say #%@$# you.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

I did answer. I can't see the hearts of people so how would I know?

And no it's not hypocritical to be Christian and not advocate the forced redistribution of wealth.

Neoklondiak

I'd flip and coin and say #%@$# you.

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Imagine, you have nothing to lose; where would you put your money? Just take a harmless guess inb4 no, I can;tBossPerson

I'd flip and coin and say #%@$# you.

I know you want me to say Scandanavia because forcing people to pay for other people's university tuition and healthcare makes Boss Person's Jesus happy. But I reject the whole premise so whatever.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

I'd flip and coin and say #%@$# you.

Neoklondiak

I know you want me to say Scandanavia because forcing people to pay for other people's university tuition and healthcare makes Boss Person's Jesus happy. But I reject the whole premise so whatever.

You can't just choose which Christians represent the faith and which don't if everyone did that people would say islam is not a problem since those blowing themselves in the name of islam are not true muslims. So yeah Christians did all those things and more. They killed great minds like Giordano Bruno and Hipatia and condemned other like Galileo Galilei. Bruno was a Christian in fact a San Franciscan specifically so even those valuable members from their faith were sacrificed. The fact is that Christians sure kept many of those books alive through people like Giordano but once they wanted to start advancing knowledge or explaining the world with them they got incarcerated, tortured or killed. Ignoring that is actually ignoring history and the "they were not true christians" excuse is pretty lame. The Teologicians of Liberation are not considered Christians by many and yet I think they are closer to what Jesus envisioned than any of the other "true" christian denominations. Now regarding the missionaries, the missionaries came with specific cultures you can't separate the missionaries from the culture they come from. And teaching other people a language so they can read the Bible helps that language disappear, they also make the culture that comes with their faith disappear. Also if a british missionary brings a disease that a native population has no defenses against then the disease will not discriminate between missionaries or not missionaries, it kills just the same. The idea of spreading a religion of the west to indigenous populations is part of cultural indoctrination and domination so missionaries helped those people get dominated and indoctrinated and all the nasty stuff that came with that.kuraimen

I most certaintly can choose those who represent the faith over those who truly do not. Or am I supposed to consider the patriarch of Constantinople and the Emperor who persecuted, tortured (cut out his tongue, dragged him through the streets) Saint Maximos the confessor? Am I to say they were on his level? A man who went into the desert to merely live in a monastic lifestyle instead of getting caught up in the politics of his day? Am I supposed to consider them both equally representing what Christ taught? Am I supposed to consider what Martin Luther said of the jews and say he was being Chrisitian here? No. In Chrisitianity we have our standard and our standard is Jesus Christ and secondary to Jesus Christ are the saints. The good saints who have been martyred whom have endured tremendous suffering, lead lifes of exemplary holiness or repentance. How can you tell me that I msut take them all as if they were all equal? No, as a Chrsitian I cannot consider Martin Luther as I could consider Saint Ignatius, or Saint Joseph or Saint Justin Martyr or thousands of others.

This is a standard you have invented for me to place on myself. And its simply not the standard of the Christian faith. To endorse those who commit evil. To commend them. No I will not no matter what you say consider Maximos on the same level as the Patrairch who killed him. I cannot.

As for the missionaries, I can separate them from the powers which were prominent. Missionaries did not have an all powerful role. They were not the heads of developing culture, it was the army, the kings and the queens that had such power and I think they were mostly right to come and introduce things and stop things which were evil. I also think they were wrong to massacre and do evil (something missionaries could not do and should never do).

But teaching the bible in a foreign language which would help them actually come out of the third world, the world that did not know of the technology and wonders around it and actually would make them able to communicate within that world is not a bad thing. The missionaries did a lot of good as far as Im concerned, and probably did some bad. As did the governments. In fact the governments had always done bad, even to their own citizens. But I cannot consider them all equal as Christians. You would have me say in the end, Ignatius was on the same level as the man who goes to church every Sunday, doesnt believe, sins and doesnt even try to escape from it, that they are both equally Christian? Well thats only true if you apply your interpretation of Christianity anachronistically onto the past, which was never the historical mainstream intereprtaion. That Christians should not sin.

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]ahh...cognitive dissonance. Nothing else to say. You have no answer, because the answer is so goddamn obvious. kuraimen

I know you want me to say Scandanavia because forcing people to pay for other people's university tuition and healthcare makes Boss Person's Jesus happy. But I reject the whole premise so whatever.

So now the coversation has shifted to taxes and the public sector in general.

Not interested.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] Actually, we do. Inflation has consistently been under 4% since the recession started. For most of the time, it's been under 2%. That is both stable and low. And do you really think the economy crashed because of inflation?Abbeten

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] You can't just choose which Christians represent the faith and which don't if everyone did that people would say islam is not a problem since those blowing themselves in the name of islam are not true muslims. So yeah Christians did all those things and more. They killed great minds like Giordano Bruno and Hipatia and condemned other like Galileo Galilei. Bruno was a Christian in fact a San Franciscan specifically so even those valuable members from their faith were sacrificed. The fact is that Christians sure kept many of those books alive through people like Giordano but once they wanted to start advancing knowledge or explaining the world with them they got incarcerated, tortured or killed. Ignoring that is actually ignoring history and the "they were not true christians" excuse is pretty lame. The Teologicians of Liberation are not considered Christians by many and yet I think they are closer to what Jesus envisioned than any of the other "true" christian denominations. Now regarding the missionaries, the missionaries came with specific cultures you can't separate the missionaries from the culture they come from. And teaching other people a language so they can read the Bible helps that language disappear, they also make the culture that comes with their faith disappear. Also if a british missionary brings a disease that a native population has no defenses against then the disease will not discriminate between missionaries or not missionaries, it kills just the same. The idea of spreading a religion of the west to indigenous populations is part of cultural indoctrination and domination so missionaries helped those people get dominated and indoctrinated and all the nasty stuff that came with that.Philokalia

I most certaintly can choose those who represent the faith over those who truly do not. Or am I supposed to consider the patriarch of Constantinople and the Emperor who persecuted, tortured (cut out his tongue, dragged him through the streets) Saint Maximos the confessor? Am I to say they were on his level? A man who went into the desert to merely live in a monastic lifestyle instead of getting caught up in the politics of his day? Am I supposed to consider them both equally representing what Christ taught? Am I supposed to consider what Martin Luther said of the jews and say he was being Chrisitian here? No. In Chrisitianity we have our standard and our standard is Jesus Christ and secondary to Jesus Christ are the saints. The good saints who have been martyred whom have endured tremendous suffering, lead lifes of exemplary holiness or repentance. How can you tell me that I msut take them all as if they were all equal? No, as a Chrsitian I cannot consider Martin Luther as I could consider Saint Ignatius, or Saint Joseph or Saint Justin Martyr or thousands of others.

This is a standard you have invented for me to place on myself. And its simply not the standard of the Christian faith. To endorse those who commit evil. To commend them. No I will not no matter what you say consider Maximos on the same level as the Patrairch who killed him. I cannot.

As for the missionaries, I can separate them from the powers which were prominent. Missionaries did not have an all powerful role. They were not the heads of developing culture, it was the army, the kings and the queens that had such power and I think they were mostly right to come and introduce things and stop things which were evil. I also think they were wrong to massacre and do evil (something missionaries could not do and should never do).

But teaching the bible in a foreign language which would help them actually come out of the third world, the world that did not know of the technology and wonders around it and actually would make them able to communicate within that world is not a bad thing. The missionaries did a lot of good as far as Im concerned, and probably did some bad. As did the governments. In fact the governments had always done bad, even to their own citizens. But I cannot consider them all equal as Christians. You would have me say in the end, Ignatius was on the same level as the man who goes to church every Sunday, doesnt believe, sins and doesnt even try to escape from it, that they are both equally Christian? Well thats only true if you apply your interpretation of Christianity anachronistically onto the past, which was never the historical mainstream intereprtaion. That Christians should not sin.

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Between socialism and capitalism, which system do you think he would prefer? How about this, would he rather have the world shaped in the mold of a place like Sweden and Finland (which still arent even socialist) or a place like Hong Kong or the US? BossPerson

How am I suppose to know? And why do we even care?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

I know you want me to say Scandanavia because forcing people to pay for other people's university tuition and healthcare makes Boss Person's Jesus happy. But I reject the whole premise so whatever.

Neoklondiak

So now the coversation has shifted to taxes and the public sector in general.

Not interested.

Many Americans, who consider themselves "liberal" or "progressive," say they hate capitalism because they think America has capitalism.

What they don't realize, however, is that we in the US have Crony Capitalism, an imposter that is ruined by greedy government politicians using regulations and bailouts to favor certain businesses, who in turn line the politicians' pockets with fat cash.

True capitalism is what the liberals want, but they don't realize it. True capitalism means no politicians get money from businesses, because politicians have nothing to offer them. When politicians can't influence business, business won't influence government.

But alas, the ignorant masses will continue to live in their stupidity, and think that more regulations will somehow fix the problems brought about by regulations.

FoxeoGames

That is just an extention of capitalism; its voluntary exchange for profit.

Progressives want Anarchy, they just don't realize it.

And I weigh the influence of those who committed evil despite supposebly being Christian not to Christianity itself. AS if it could be argued that Nancy Polosi supportion has anything to do with her Catholic faith. The influence of Christianity in certain things can be plausible such as the Crusades and I dont think all the crusades were bad. It was afterall Christians in the holyland being forbidden to enter and the exxessive expansion of Islam into the west that promoted such a response from the pope at the time to stop Islam from taking over the west.

So your conclusion is lacking, that Chrisitainity represents more harm than Good. Take in mind under your standard we would have to judge atheistic philosophies such as the Communistic Russia as being representantive of Atheism therefore atheism has caused more harm than good. No the truth is more complex in that it wasnt the atheism that caused that reaction as much as it was the lack of any real morality, any real truth that caused that deplorable state to become what it was.

But Its fascinating that you dont want these cultures being exposed to western ideas. Ideas that have made our lives better. That someone how introducing something that has proven a success over history will somehow hurt them more. Do you remember the examples I gave about Chrisitan actions throughout history? The missionaries not just go there to preach, they are active in the community helping out in many ways the local people there. So you are ultimately mistaken and you have ultimately taken this discussion way from what It was intended to be. Christianity did not cause evil in the western world. The nature of mankind did. Its good based on what Chirsitainity actually says has saved more people than it has hurt.

[QUOTE="Neoklondiak"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] You get paid for your transportation too since all the roads are publicly funded and I don't see you complaining about that. In fact the internet you're now writing on is a product of public funds...kuraimen

So now the coversation has shifted to taxes and the public sector in general.

Not interested.

What is wrong with individuals owning their own things, and choosing what to do with their things? Why can't we all be free (that means economic freedom), and respect the freedom of others? Why do so many people try to control what others do with their money/property?

Laihendi

And I weigh the influence of those who committed evil despite supposebly being Christian not to Christianity itself. AS if it could be argued that Nancy Polosi supportion has anything to do with her Catholic faith. The influence of Christianity in certain things can be plausible such as the Crusades and I dont think all the crusades were bad. It was afterall Christians in the holyland being forbidden to enter and the exxessive expansion of Islam into the west that promoted such a response from the pope at the time to stop Islam from taking over the west.

So your conclusion is lacking, that Chrisitainity represents more harm than Good. Take in mind under your standard we would have to judge atheistic philosophies such as the Communistic Russia as being representantive of Atheism therefore atheism has caused more harm than good. No the truth is more complex in that it wasnt the atheism that caused that reaction as much as it was the lack of any real morality, any real truth that caused that deplorable state to become what it was.

But Its fascinating that you dont want these cultures being exposed to western ideas. Ideas that have made our lives better. That someone how introducing something that has proven a success over history will somehow hurt them more. Do you remember the examples I gave about Chrisitan actions throughout history? The missionaries not just go there to preach, they are active in the community helping out in many ways the local people there. So you are ultimately mistaken and you have ultimately taken this discussion way from what It was intended to be. Christianity did not cause evil in the western world. The nature of mankind did. Its good based on what Chirsitainity actually says has saved more people than it has hurt.

Philokalia

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

What is wrong with individuals owning their own things, and choosing what to do with their things? Why can't we all be free (that means economic freedom), and respect the freedom of others? Why do so many people try to control what others do with their money/property?

BranKetra