Sex

[gclayjr]

2ndRatetMind,

I would say that any wealthy person, who cannot bring themselves to part with some portion of their wealth, even to save a life, loves their money more than they love their neighbour, and is therefore guilty of 'economic sin'.

So if a rich man gives a farthing he is innocent?

Regards,

George Clay

[2ndRateMind]

If that farthing is sufficient to save that life, then yes, in that instance.

Cheers, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Collectivist ideas are dangerous. It always ends badly.

Perhaps you can explain to me exactly where I have invoked collectivism. I so far prefer social justice achieved voluntarily, each individual contributing his or her fair portion, that I would not even support any central authority imposition, at all. What I ask is far harder than having decisions made for you by some government; I want you to exercise prudent virtue of your own accord.

Cheers, 2RM.

[Fiannan]

Collectivist ideas are dangerous. It always ends badly.

Perhaps you can explain to me exactly where I have invoked collectivism. I so far prefer social justice achieved voluntarily, each individual contributing his or her fair portion, that I would not even support any central authority imposition, at all. What I ask is far harder than having decisions made for you by some government; I want you to exercise prudent virtue of your own accord.

Cheers, 2RM.

Then you are living in a dream world. You may as well speculate what would happen if Monsanto could produce rainbow unicorns that could do all the housework and how that would benefit humanity.

[Fiannan]

If that farthing is sufficient to save that life, then yes, in that instance.

Cheers, 2RM.

So no government involved? How would you persuade people to part with what they have worked for?

By the way, what does your avatar represent. Looks like a scary big dude carrying off a limp Bart Simpson.

[2ndRateMind]

No Government involved.

The avatar is just the silhouette of a wandering pilgrim.

I'll get back to you about the rest, maybe tomorrow.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[gclayjr]

2ndRateMind,

As I mentioned before, "economic morality" is a term that has many meanings, and is used as a "Hammer" to justify "Social Justice" and Totalitarian Socialist government policies, to "even the scales" by taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

If you truly define "economic morality" as simply the obligation to use your resources (stewardship) as best as you see fit to help your fellow man, then I have no problem with it. Since this term is so often used to justify the morality of either the personal obligation, or the government coercion to "even the playing field" by taking from the rich and giving to the poor so that all have the same amount of stuff, then I do have a problem with it. In fact, one of your earlier threads was proposing exactly that. That is probably why you are getting "push back" from other members of this board, who think, as I do, that "Socialism' and "social Justice" are evil and we know the traditional Moral justifications used for such. And this sounds like it.

Regards,

George Clay

[Dash jones]

My thing wasn't necessarily with the government mandated charity (though someone who felt strongly about it PM'd me but ironically didn't accept PM's back...why would someone do that?), but with charity in and of itself. The ONLY reason I feel government charity exists is because the religious LACK the charity that they should have (remember, Christ himself and his opinion of those who were stuck to money and how he normally put those in poverty FAR ahead of everyone else, furthermore remember he himself appears to have lived a life of poverty while during his actual ministry, and finally remember that if you are Mormon, you are told that there should be no poor among you. IF there ARE poor among you, it typically means that the membership isn't exactly being righteous and probably is in one of the more wicked stages if the Book of Mormon is any indication).

HOWEVER...I've already posed the question of how you would treat Christ prior in the thread...the next step is to simply ask...do you have a problem with the following?

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

This covers those things people mention as excuses, and why they let the beggar beg in vain at times. They feel he has brought it on himself (either laziness, not a hard worker, deserves it due to whatever excuse one wants to use)...just as 17 states. I think 18 is ABUNDANTLY clear and specific on this type of attitude.

21 And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another.

22 And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.

23 I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are rich as pertaining to the things of this world.

I think it is abundantly clear in regards to LDS Mormons what their take should be. This does NOT say...it's a minor thing, or no problem with you, it says pretty straightforward what type of attitude you should have (even if you don't have enough to give, you can still have an attitude of charity).

It doesn't say give everything, but it DOES say that you need to have this feeling of charity, and the condemnation one has without it is explicitly spelled out. This punishment is NO less than that of someone who breaks the laws of Chastity.

26 And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

27 And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

As I said, it doesn't say you have to let yourself starve, but you should have that feeling of charity, and if you do not...well...it is rather clear on HOW IMPORTANT this is.

This is also stated in the New Testament, but Mosiah is explicitly clear to Mormons. In the US I think this is the MOST IGNORED item, for people have the love of money and instead of doing as the scriptures say, they would rather let the poor and needy remain that way and blame the poor and needy rather than do as Christ would.

Remember, if you have done it to the least of these, you have done it unto him. Whether it is to deny him food and shelter, or to provide him with food and shelter...what do YOU choose to do to him.

I think almost all the excuses which people give, or the infuriation they show against charity is typically because of pride, and because as the book of Mormon actually states, "the wicked find the truth to be hard."

That is actually something I agree with. I am wicked in many ways, and when one wants to condemn my sins...my first reaction is to try to defend myself (and thereby the sin). This is because of my pride. It is because of our pride where we want to justify our failings.

None of us are perfect, but as I said, Chastity and Charity are BOTH equally important, you cannot ignore one and keep the other, both are required. I find that among many who claim to be Christian (and as I remarked before, this is NOT just Mormons, but extends FAR beyond Mormons and is common among us who SHOULD be Christians) forget Charity as one of the Major themes of the New Testament (and the Book of Mormon for that matter).

Finally, and one last thing, if we truly DID have charity, as commanded in the New Testament, and as the Book of Mormon seems to actually specifically point out, if we actually practiced charity as we should, there would be no need for government charity at ALL. The Book of Mormon points out when the Nephites were righteous that there typically was NO POOR among them (That doesn't mean they all were rich...but simply that the necessities of life apparently were met). This is charity. It's not about whether or not the Government has a charity program (and if it does, then to me that means that we as a society have failed in our Christian values), but whether we ourselves have that charity in our hearts and that love towards the Lord and our neighbors that we would raise them up rather than despise them for being poor and needy.

[bornfree]

When I saw this topic it reminded me of a resume I once received.
NAME- Joseph Something
BIRTHDATE- 6-7-?
PLACE OF BIRTH- ARIZONA
SEX- Once in Phoenix

[2ndRateMind]

2ndRateMind,

As I mentioned before, "economic morality" is a term that has many meanings, and is used as a "Hammer" to justify "Social Justice" and Totalitarian Socialist government policies, to "even the scales" by taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

If you truly define "economic morality" as simply the obligation to use your resources (stewardship) as best as you see fit to help your fellow man, then I have no problem with it. Since this term is so often used to justify the morality of either the personal obligation, or the government coercion to "even the playing field" by taking from the rich and giving to the poor so that all have the same amount of stuff, then I do have a problem with it. In fact, one of your earlier threads was proposing exactly that. That is probably why you are getting "push back" from other members of this board, who think, as I do, that "Socialism' and "social Justice" are evil and we know the traditional Moral justifications used for such. And this sounds like it.

Regards,

George Clay

George; I defy you to find and quote a post where I have proposed the government taking from the rich to give to the poor. As for social justice; I do not see this as an evil, but as a public good. If we are to achieve it, however, so that no one is absolutely poor, anywhere in the world, the onus does fall on the rich actually to make their contribution voluntarily. And many do. But many more do not. These latter are the target of my frustration.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Fiannan]

George; I defy you to find and quote a post where I have proposed the government taking from the rich to give to the poor. As for social justice; I do not see this as an evil, but as a public good. If we are to achieve it, however, so that no one is absolutely poor, anywhere in the world, the onus does fall on the rich to actually make their contribution voluntarily. And many do. But many more do not. These latter are the target of my frustration.

Name a few who do. Who are your heroes?

[2ndRateMind]

Well, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet spring to mind, as doing good work. But my heroes are really those anonymous individuals on modest incomes who have decided they have quite enough, thank you, are happy with their lot, and quietly go about making the world a better place for all concerned without fuss or fanfare. Nevertheless, I would like to see their contributions prioritised and coordinated, so their effectiveness is maximised. This interweb thingy gives us the tool to do that, in a suitably democratic, decentralised manner.

Cheers, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Then you are living in a dream world...

Of course I am. Dreams are powerful things, when they are converted to ambitions. I dream the end of hunger. I dream the end of poverty. I dream that every child be loved, cherished, nurtured and nourished. I dream there are no longer preventable diseases, because they have all been prevented. I dream of universal, affordable health care. I dream of universal education, at least to primary level, so that all can read, write and do arithmetic. I dream of adequate housing, and good sanitation. I dream of clean water, on tap, for all. These are not such big things to ask, that we cannot accomplish them within the space of a single generation, if we put our minds to it. We just need to live the Gospel, and love enough to give enough. So, I urge you, dare to care. Dare to share the dream. And when we all do, then it will not be a dream, any longer, but a much improved quality of life for all of us to live.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Fiannan]

Well, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet spring to mind, as doing good work. But my heroes are really those anonymous individuals on modest incomes who have decided they have quite enough, thank you, are happy with their lot, and quietly go about making the world a better place for all concerned without fuss or fanfare. Nevertheless, I would like to see their contributions prioritised and coordinated, so their effectiveness is maximised. This interweb thingy gives us the tool to do that, in a suitably democratic, decentralised manner.

Cheers, 2RM.

How about George Soros? I would have thought you shared his ambitions.

You know what? You should be a libertarian. If people did not have to pay such high taxes maybe they would be able to share more.

[gclayjr]

2ndRateMind,

You may not have advocated force, but you did identify your goal

I have this idea about economic equality. That idea is, that if all the world's economic resource were evenly distributed, in terms of net worth and income, that world would be a better place.

So I guess what you are advocating is voluntary socialism. I don't know if you are aware of the LDS concept of consecration; sometimes refereed to as living the United Order. Many misunderstand this to be a voluntary God managed socialism. Modern prophets have clarified that this, is not so but there are those who still live that fantasy.

I have offered this thought experiment to help understand how ridiculous this is:

Suppose you have 2 men living in a religious community where all have consecrated their time talents and resources for the common good of the community. Suppose one man's skill is the ability to build and manage a shoe factory, and he has no children. Suppose the second man has 10 children, but his skill is to know how to operate machines that make shoes. Further, let's suppose that there is an opportunity to expand that shoe factory to produce more shoes, and provide work for more people. Who should get the "bigger piece of the pie"

The man with 0 kids, but who can expand a factory or
The man with 10 kids, who can only work in that factory?


Regards,

George Clay

[Dash jones]

First-For any reading this thread, I DID NOT want to report any posts...any posts reported was DONE by accident by clicking a wrong icon (which surprised me...it suddenly went to saying I reported a post...which I did NOT intend to do...

Don't know how to tell the Moderators otherwise that this was an accidental hit on this thread.

2ndRateMind,

You may not have advocated force, but you did identify your goal

I have this idea about economic equality. That idea is, that if all the world's economic resource were evenly distributed, in terms of net worth and income, that world would be a better place.

So I guess what you are advocating is voluntary socialism. I don't know if you are aware of the LDS concept of consecration; sometimes refereed to as living the United Order. Many misunderstand this to be a voluntary God managed socialism. Modern prophets have clarified that this, is not so but there are those who still live that fantasy.

I have offered this thought experiment to help understand how ridiculous this is:

Suppose you have 2 men living in a religious community where all have consecrated their time talents and resources for the common good of the community. Suppose one man's skill is the ability to build and manage a shoe factory, and he has no children. Suppose the second man has 10 children, but his skill is to know how to operate machines that make shoes. Further, let's suppose that there is an opportunity to expand that shoe factory to produce more shoes, and provide work for more people. Who should get the "bigger piece of the pie"

The man with 0 kids, but who can expand a factory or
The man with 10 kids, who can only work in that factory?


Regards,

George Clay

From LDS history the man who has 10 kids would have the more money.

If the one who is running the shoe factory can increase it, then it will be increased.

However, something interesting about the early days of the church, in many occupations (such as managing a shoe factory, becoming a blacksmith) it wasn't always obvious who was going to be called to do what. Sometimes the person may not have ever blacksmithed before, or have been a shoemaker. They were called to do what jobs they could and found blessings in learning and providing those items to the people around them (if accounts are to be understood).

The particular story I am recalling reading was about one of the members being called as a blacksmith. Now in those days, blacksmithing was a job that was learnt over years, first being an apprentice and then a journeyman and then the Master. At first horse shoes and such were not such high quality. However, with blessings, supposedly they became a blessing to others and themselves in the position, if I recall the story correctly.

They served and did where they were needed.

[gclayjr]

Dash Jones,

From the Pilgrims to certain communities in LDS history , various people have interpreted various scriptures in both the Bible and the BOM where the phrase "in Common" is used to imply that those righteous communities lived a sort of religious version of Socialism, or a voluntary socialism." Every one of these experiments was a total disaster, usually leading to starvation. Generally those experiments which were encouraged by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were not really religious socialist experiments. In those communities the people creating those communities pooled their stuff together only to have it deeded back to them. However, this was only a means for commencing the experiment, afterwards, each was free to improve his stewardship according to his righteous needs and desires. While we have been told that currently we aren't ready to live every jot and title of the law of consecration (although individually we can), we have also been told that one reason that these communities failed, is because the individuals who established and lived in them did not properly understand and interpret what the law of consecration was really about. I'll reference one good talk by Marion G. related to this.

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1476

I guess from the beginning of time, Satan has used our weaknesses and naivete to fool us into believing his cheap substitute for true principles.

So, maybe in some of those communities, which were not established according to the direction of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the man with 10 children would receive the most (from those according to their ability to those according to their needs), However this is not in compliance with the concept of "stewardship" where one manages and grows a stewardship to honor God, and help his brothers and sisters, and for which he has the "right" to his needs and righteous desires. In that case, the man with the factory would be quite proper in taking a larger amount to expand his factory, and the man with 10 children would get assistance as needed to help him raise his family.

Regards,

George Clay

[2ndRateMind]

2ndRateMind,

You may not have advocated force, but you did identify your goal

I have this idea about economic equality. That idea is, that if all the world's economic resource were evenly distributed, in terms of net worth and income, that world would be a better place.

So I guess what you are advocating is voluntary socialism. I don't know if you are aware of the LDS concept of consecration; sometimes refereed to as living the United Order. Many misunderstand this to be a voluntary God managed socialism. Modern prophets have clarified that this, is not so but there are those who still live that fantasy.

I have offered this thought experiment to help understand how ridiculous this is:

Suppose you have 2 men living in a religious community where all have consecrated their time talents and resources for the common good of the community. Suppose one man's skill is the ability to build and manage a shoe factory, and he has no children. Suppose the second man has 10 children, but his skill is to know how to operate machines that make shoes. Further, let's suppose that there is an opportunity to expand that shoe factory to produce more shoes, and provide work for more people. Who should get the "bigger piece of the pie"

The man with 0 kids, but who can expand a factory or
The man with 10 kids, who can only work in that factory?


Regards,

George Clay

Well, I would have thought that some equity sharing, co-operative model might be introduced, seeing as the skills of both men are required to actually get those shoes made and to market. Certainly, I do not see any need for either one to get ten or a hundred or a thousand times the wages of the other.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[gclayjr]

2ndRateMInd,

You completely missed it.

In my example, there may or may not be any difference in wages. But for a modern life with modern conveniences, there are those who are making those conveniences and investment and reinvestment is needed. The actual question was whether the person who knows how to build and run a factory should be free to "follow his star" and decide to reinvest or not based upon his own judgement. Or should this all be some sort of "community property" where some committee decides what to make and what to do.

and that sir is socialism, which has and always will FAIL! particularly the poorest people that it is advertised to help.

Regards,

George Clay

[Fiannan]

2ndratemind, maybe in the near future robots will replace all jobs. Then the elite who own the means of production and the robots can indulge the masses much like the obese humans in the dystopian movie "Wall-E." Reproduction of the masses can be discouraged and eventually the majority of people weeded out of the gene pool. However, while they do exist they can be allowed a payment to be able to "eat, drink and be merry" and enjoy their socialistic servitude.

[gclayjr]

Fiannen,

I guess you don't believe in following God's command to "Multiply and replenish the earth".

Maybe you should check with China, Japan, and Europe and see how awful a world is without enough children.

Regards,

George Clay

[Matchmaker]

2ndratemind, maybe in the near future robots will replace all jobs. Then the elite who own the means of production and the robots can indulge the masses much like the obese humans in the dystopian movie "Wall-E." Reproduction of the masses can be discouraged and eventually the majority of people weeded out of the gene pool. However, while they do exist they can be allowed a payment to be able to "eat, drink and be merry" and enjoy their socialistic servitude.

I liked "Wall-E." It was a fun movie. Check out the book "Leisureville" by Andrew Blechman. The Villages in Florida is the fastest growing "village" in the US, with over 100,000 senior citizens currently living there. Perhaps the "eat, drink and be merry" thing has already started.

[Fiannan]

Fiannen,

I guess you don't believe in following God's command to "Multiply and replenish the earth".

Maybe you should check with China, Japan, and Europe and see how awful a world is without enough children.

Regards,

George Clay

Me? I am being told I don't believe in reproduction? :))

What I was envisioning is what the elite have in mind for the future. You think "Hunger Games" is pure fantasy? The elite will eventually set in motion policies that will decimate the birthrate -- and that is not even taking into account trading life extension for agreements to get sterilized. You think taking on the "mark of the beast" is going to be just some sort of forced form of government-imposed painful mandate? Ha! It will most likely involve the most cherished trade-off ever imagined - bow to the state and get to be young and healthy for centuries. Problem is, that might lead to "overpopulation" but the elite will have a bargain to make. ;)

[gclayjr]

Fiannan,

You think "Hunger Games" is pure fantasy?

YES IT IS!

The primary reason that Social Security is going Broke is that when it started there were about 14 workers for every beneficiary. Now it is less than 3 and getting worse, primarily due to a lack of young peope entering the work force and it is only going to get worse. China with its famous 1 child policy is also finding a growth in elderly that need care and a dearth of young people to enter the work force (not to mention a lack of young women for wives). Japan is trying to figure out how they can perhaps use Robots to make up for a lack of young workers. The main reason Merkel gives for embracing Middle Eastern refugees is to fulfill the need of Germany for young workers, because of low birthrate.

These are REAL problems we are experiencing today, and yes Hunger Games and all of your other musings ARE just fantasy.

Regards,

George CLay

[Fiannan]

These are REAL problems we are experiencing today, and yes Hunger Games and all of your other musings ARE just fantasy.

Tell that to the folks over at The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ndful-gods" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And former labor secretary Robert Reich: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/wer ... s_20150203" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Trump is correct in calling Merkel's policies "insane" because what she is doing is bringing in a bunch of low-skill people, many of which will want to go on welfare first thing, and merely burdening her nation.

Oh, and I was talking with a guy today who just attended a large conference sponsored by one of the biggest trans-national corporations involved in the field of technology. He told me 90% of all presentations involved the expected massive impacts from robot innovations on the labor force of the future. Tell me more about my fantasies.