:: Why? Because my points are so inarguable? Look all over the world for= examples of the religious left. Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Burma, Brazil, Nicaragua....Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven,Jesus didn't condemn rich men here, did he? He went on to say that this was possible through God. Read the text and think.
:: and he also said "thy kingdom come, ON EARTH as in heaven", which is a clear justification for trying to establish a socoiety in accordance with divine law (iincluding an economics of sharing, i.e. communism) on the earth.
Clear justification Nikhil? Thy kingdom come (my kingdom is not of this earth...), Thy will be done (lay up not for yourselves treasures on earth...) on earth as it is in heaven.
: "Catholicism and Conservatism are incompatible bedfellows."-Graham Greene.
Sure they are - if conservatives are allowed to be defined soley by knee-jerk leftists.
:: Erm? Anyway, is it coincidence that Hitler was a prodct of the industrialized, capitalized West?
Allude to industrialization and capitalism instead of moral bankruptcy to explain the depravity Third Reich. Real good, Nik. You are brainwashed.
:: What in Bob's sweet name are you talking about? nicaragua under communism registered the highest growth rate in latin America IN SPITE of the American embargo....that is, until Ameroica started launching its terrorist war against a freely elected communist democracy.
Are you for real Nikhil? I suppose after the communists grabbed it from Somoza things improved a bit for Nicaraguans. Somoza was treating it like his own personal estate after all. But are you suggesting that communism was to be given the credit for their increase in living standards? Don't you think you might want to credit the combination of ending a resource sucking dictatorship and a large infusion of Russian cash for that improvment? It might be a good idea for you to acknowledge that the Soviets were quite busy with global imperialism at that time and that the money they gave was buying some pretty loyal support down there. As for the United States being terrorist, I expect that kind of rhetoric from a brainwashed hack. I expect Cuba never had any nukes and the whole thing was a capitalist plot to justify blowing communism off the map.
:: Got news for you, Stu. To quote my former high school headmaster (an Episcopal Reverend) "you don't deserve anything you own; you didn't deserveto be born into those circumstances." None of us in America deserve what we have.
Then thank God you have it instead of feeling guilty about it.
:: capitalists don't earn their money, they live as parasites off the frits of other people's labor.
Too bad that's a textbook definition for socialisism.
:: Obviosuly if tehy supply engineering or technical advice tehy are useful, but if tehy jsut supply money and investment then the contribute absolutely nothing of any value in an objective sense.
Execept for the money, of course, which is necessary. Incidently, if money isn't objectively valuable why do you accept it in trade for anything?
:: Capitalists earn nothing, and steal what they own from teh workers.
Stuff your rhetoric Nikhil. The meaning of words like theft and stealing remain understood regardless of your attempts to obfuscate and generate emotive reactions.
::By teh way, standard of living increases in socialist / communist countries are indeed long term. look at Kerala or sweden for example.
Yeah, look at 'em. Professionals have been leaving them in droves for years. Sweden is a textbook case. Do you have any idea how many swedish doctors have opted for America recently? The tax rate is through the roof. The government pays for nearly everything. The people who are motivated to achieve are homoganized and resent it. They are leaving.
:: And no, it's not just Russia russia, belarus, Latvia, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Chechoslovakia,
After decades of breeding the concepts of central economies into a people there can be no expectation of rapid understanding of what it actually means to be free. In addition, capital is not going to flow into these countries overnight. It must be a slow progression towards the goal. But let's ask a Latvian how he feels about his freedom in 50 years, shall we?
Mongolia, Nicaragua, Chile, the Congo, Mozambique, Angola, jamaica.....the list goes on and on.
Are you seriously using these countries as testaments to the overwhelming failure of capitalism? Your joking, right?
:: Communism Lives! Especially in India.
??? India enjoys respect for rule of law, protects private property, requires state compensation for seizure of property, has a growing consumer based middle class, and has a market based economy. Ghadar is going nowhere over there and you know it.
:: Nice try redefining my tolerance into selifshness, and redefining bigotry into altruism.
Did you not say that you didn't care if the whole world went gay except for you and some nice girl? If your going to go to those rhetorical lengths to make your point I'm going to mess with you.
:: i would argue, however, that it's the epitome of selfishness to say 'Homosexuality makes me feel uncomfortable, therefore I'mm going to demand taht everyone else be exactly like me just so i can feel good about myself."
But that isn't what I said, is it? I said men (in general...the vast majority...a very high percentage...quite nearly all) are naturally repulsed by the idea. But you heard me say that other thing so I must have. See Nikhil, you can't argue the facts here so you twist my words instead. Argue that the vast majority of men aren't repulsed by homosexuality so I can laugh, shake my head, and realize you are too hopelessly indoctrinated to see the world as it actually is.
:: They ahve exactly as much right to find love and fulfilment as you or I, stu. Tolerance has nothing to do with selfishness, instead it's a realization of our basic human equality with one anoyther. It baffles me how you can think taht bigotry is something good.
Funny how words change over the years. Bigotry used to apply to those who judged other folks according to their skin color or some other attribute that they had no control of. Today it covers a wide range of behaviors which people can control. Who knows what oddities it may include in years to come. Perhaps beastiality and pedophilia can someday be politically correct enough to warrant special protection from judgment by the bigotry cops.
:: I'm still awaiting a response, by the way, to my unanswerd point. If your God is a rational God, then it follows that his laws must be able to be accomodated within a framework of reason.
Maybe God is quite rational but doesn't wish to explain Himself to you.
Forcing Him to manifest Himself according to your understanding sounds a little arrogant.
:: I.e. we shoudl be able to formulate arguments why his decrees would make sense even to a nonbeliever.
?What? This is a complete cognitive breakdown, Nikhil. A nonbeliever doesn't believe. Let's just eliminate God for the sake of convenience. After He's gone we can make up a sensible religion.
:: I am prepared to do this for any ethic that i hpold to be divinely inspired.
You will do as you wish apparently, regardless of what might be true.
:: Those things that i cannotd do thsi for, I thrown out with a vengeance.
So all things suboordinate themselves to your intellect or they cease to exist? That's deeply arrogant Nikhil. That deifies yourself and humanizes God. But don't forget that if you throw those things out with a vengeance, they will continue to exist if they are truth.
:: this is just part of teh reason, for example, why I rejevct the caste system with a vengeance. It was not divinely inspird, rather it was a corruption of teh religion introduced by power-seeking men. Now, Stu, will you do the same? can you supply a non-biblical reason why homosexuality is wrong?
Why should I do that just to suit you?
:: I've gone over thsi already but i will do so again. The fact that homosexuality is natural and common among animals does not mean, per se, that it is right for us. However, it takes the burden of proof off the defenders of homosexuality, since the arguemnt taht it is a bizzarre human invention is clearly false. The burden of proof is on you to explain why it is immoral. Why is it immoral? please supply a reason, and please don't resort to biblical arguments, for teh reason outlined above.
Of course, you mean, "Please don't tell me that your morality is based upon the biblical God because morality is whatever I want it to be."
Well, I can't do that Nikhil. I base morality on what I believe is God's instruction to us.
: Incidentally, the meat eating argument falls flat. i could just as well ague, "gorillas eat only vegetables, hence eating vegetables is natural, hence we should only eat vegetables."
You didn't pay attention to the argument. I say the animal kindom is immoral to eat meat if I am immoral for eating meat (these guys are telling me eating meat is immoral). You say gays are not immoral for acting as animals act. Then I'm not immoral when I eat meat.
Stuart Gort
