Well, why don't you spend $100 million to make a movie, and as soon as you release it I'll copy it and release it at 1/10th the price you can afford to release it at and we'll see how much copyright would have been worth to you.
I'll make more money off your investment than you will. Most likely you'll lose money as who is going to buy from you in spite your investment when they can buy the exact same thing, off the same shelf in the same store, from me for 1/10 the price?
How many more movies are you going to invest time and money in after losing most of your $100 million the first time? Are you going to keep on losing 10's of millions time and time again? How stupid would you have to be to keep on losing large sums of money not to learn that you couldn't compete with someone who just copies your work and releases it right alongside of yours?
Yeah, copyright is just pure idiocy.... It doesn't encourage anyone to invest time and money producing creative content at all.
Your argument is foolish. Both items that I took were for sale, and I didn't pay for either of them. I walked out of the store with merchandise I never paid for. In any honest person's book that is theft. It's just as much theft as if I had taken the physical book and the file as I now had the unfettered usage of both without entering into a legal transaction with the store owner to gain legal ownership of either of them.
In my eyes obtaining ownership illegally is theft as it is depriving someone else of their rightful payment. You can argue it all you want to, but your argument doesn't pass the smell test. It stinks of dishonesty.
That's correct. Cigarette smokers, of which I used to be one, have a hard time quitting.
I don't think any addictive, dangerous, health-destroying drug ought to be sold. It's a sure way to ruin your own society. Sawing yourself off at the knees isn't a viable method of promoting life, health and growth.
One most wonder why is it that transparency of government operations is a weakness, and not a strength.
Ask our least transparent president other than Nixon, Obama, about that. If anything in government should be transparent it's the legislative process, and under him it's been anything but transparent.
Transparency of government operations with respect to other nations is not very often a good idea. All it will provide is an advantage to the nation you're negotiating/dealing with because the transparency will be unilateral rather than bilateral.
So, you're making a moral equivalency argument and comparing an honest opinion and taking something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it. I see no correlation between the two at all. It's not only bad logic, it's a completely illogical comparison.
I am not a police officer, nor in most places am I required to report non-violent crimes.
On moral grounds I would not report drug dealers anymore than prostitutes or homosexuals in the military. I also will not report those hacking devices they own for fun or profit. What police state do you live in?
So, you find it moral to sell highly addictive drugs that destroy people's lives. Talk to any long-time heroin addict and find out just how happy they are to be addicted, and what effect their addiction has had on their life. You'll find out that they wish they had never started, that they had never been able to find someone to sell it to them.
How can I make those claims? I'm a recovering addict. I know what damage drugs did to me, and the effect drugs had on my life. Had I never been able to buy any drugs, I would have missed out on a lot of negatives. Nobody has the right to destroy another person's life, and that's exactly what drug dealers do. They knowingly destroy lives.
That you find knowingly destroying lives the moral equivalent of being a homosexual is pretty revealing as to who you are.... In my eyes your moral philosophy is a danger to the health of our society.
You have a store in which you sell books. So, I come into your store, take the book down to the local copy shop and copy the book. I then return your book and go home and read it. Did I steal the purchase price of the book from you? Or, say you have ebooks for sale too and I bring my netbook into your store and just copy the file onto my netbook. I never pay you for it. Did I rip you off? What if everyone did exactly what I did? How long would you stay in business? And how about the author? How does he support himself when everyone just takes his work which took him anywhere from months to years to complete and cost him thousands of dollars for research travel and access to the documentation he needed to support his ideas?
If you would do a little research you would know that in 2007 the number of coyotes running wild in Chicago was estimated to be as high as 2000 at that time. They said there is no part of the greater Chicago area without a population of coyotes and that they were astonished at how well the coyote has adapted to urban living.
The press release is just about the number of coyotes that the researchers have trapped, tagged, and released.
Well, that's what you get for owning rat-dogs like chihuahuas, toy poodles, etc.... They are so small the coyotes get confused as to which species those little yappers belong to and think they're breakfast, lunch, or dinner. I can't say as I blame them, and I own a chihuahua/papillion cross. He would most definitely look like a snack to a predator such as a coyote and it's my responsibility to make sure a coyote doesn't get him, and I live on the outskirts of a small town where deer, coyotes, hawks, owls, skunks, etc... make common appearances as we are close to a game trail heading to a nearby river.
Coyotes hunt, not rob garbage cans if there is any of their natural food/prey available. It's born and bred into them. I'd much, much rather have a few coyotes around than be overrun by something like Norway or pack rats. Those buggers can kill your little dogs too, besides destroying your property and spreading disease.
Coyotes are clean, and naturally shy of human beings. They are as productive/helpful as owls, hawks, and many insects such as the preying mantis. There's a reason they are a part of the natural ecosystem.
What Rand Paul said was not a call for state support of a religion. What he called for was the elimination of the state suppressing the right to the free expression of a religion. The Constitution says that Congress must pass no law establishing a state religion, and that it must not interfere with the expression of religion. Banning nativity scenes is interfering with the expression of a religion.
The very man who progressives point to saying no expression of religion should be tolerated on public property attended church in the Capitol Building. Both house of Congress and the Executive Branch gave their blessing to the Capitol Building being used as a church. Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln were among the Presidents who attended services there. Now if the very men who wrote our Constitution found nothing wrong with church being held in a government building then any other interpretation of the Constitution is wrong. They knew what they meant when they wrote it. And, 2 days after Jefferson wrote the "wall of separation" letter he attended church in the Capitol building so his letter did not put forth the ideas that so many people want to now say it does. Jefferson clearly didn't have those ideas in mind, or he would have been the first to shut down the church in the Capitol building rather than attending it for close to 10 years.
I lived in the Portland area when Wyden first ran for the Senate ( I still live in the PNW) and he was a complete idiot as far as I was concerned. He couldn't find countries on a map of the world that were in the national news on a daily basis, and on which he was expressing public opinions as to what the US needed to do there. I mean, how can you form an intelligent opinion of what our national policy should be when you know so little about an area that you don't even know where it is, let alone what the historical conflicts were between the different cultures in that area? To me, he was in so far over his head on the issues that he made himself look completely incompetent, and I've never seen anything from him since that has changed my opinion.
I don't know why he took this stand, but I'd bet his understanding of the issue is very thin, and his stand on IT issues as a whole is self-contradictory. IMO, he most likely got this one right by throwing darts blindfolded at a board or from a coin flip.
BTW, I was a Democrat when I lived in the Portland area.
Sorry. You need to start showing your evidence. I'm not going to chase my tail by answering all your unsupported assertions and allow you to just keep me on the defensive. You either participate in an honest debate, or the debate is over and I will consider you to have withdrawn from the debate because you cannot support your assertions....
I'll give you some more evidence that shows Christianity is the antithesis of socialism. In the verses below, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles--that's you and me--gives direct instructions on how those who won't work to support themselves are to be treated:
KJV: II Thessalonians Chapter 3
[6] Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
[7] For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
[8] Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
[9] Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
[10] For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
[11] For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
[12] Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
Paul is most definitely teaching the direct opposite of socialism, and what's more he is commanding people to not follow the guiding principle of socialism--that everyone has a right to eat whether or not they will work and that everyone must support those who will not work. He says he taught this not only in words, but by his own actions. I'd say he makes a piss poor socialist, wouldn't you? I'd also say this shows that Christianity is a non-socialist religion
First, you have supplied no substantiation for any of your claims. No documentation whatsoever. All you've done so far is make unsupported assertions.
Second, you're completely wrong about de Toqueville's commentary. Nation-wide socialism cannot be done without the government's power to tax and enforce redistribution of wealth. The central planning and distribution that socialism on that scale requires can only be supplied by an organization with the size, scope, and power of government. You can make all the claims you want to the contrary, by it's self-evident that government must be the agent of enforcement and because of that socialism must by definition reduce the liberty of the individual. Hayek shows all of this very clearly in the Road to Serfdom. That alone makes socialism the antithesis of anything to do with Christianity.
Christianity has nothing to do with economic theory. Its goal is to ready the individual for the afterlife in which there will be no economic structure. Everyone will be self-sufficient with God at the center of all life. The Bible says that no one will build and another inhabit, or plant and another eat and that God's people will long enjoy the work of their hands. That verse alone shows there will be no buying or selling in heaven. There will be no need for it.
Third, there are no economic theories taught in the Bible. The Bible doesn't teach any political, economic, or social theories. It teaches individual responsibility: first to God, second to man. It teaches the history of this world with respect to God and the devil and how man has interacted with both. And lastly, it teaches us about human nature.
Of course I'm my brother's keeper. However, that is done through the change of my heart from selfishness to love for my fellow man, not by government edict which can never accomplish a change of heart.
A right-wing fantasy of socialism? Really? Just how do you justify this statement seeing that Christianity is a religion, a way of living by faith that affects all parts of the believer's life, and that socialism is nothing more than an economic theory?
Are you a Christian? Do you practice Christianity and believe that Christ is your savior? Do you believe you need the forgiveness of your sins that only God can provide and that He has the moral and legal right to tell you how to live every aspect of your life? Where are these concepts taught in socialism because if socialism is a Christian philosophy it would point to Christ as the real solution to the world's problems? I see that done no where in socialistic theory.
Also, since you've done nothing but make unsubstantiated claims show your supposed proof from scripture that socialism is taught in the Bible? Where is your evidence? So far you've shown none.
It's very clear you know nothing about the Bible, the principles of Christianity, or the teachings of Christ, when you make the claims you do.
Here's Peter refuting your idea of conflating socialism and Christianity completely.
KJV: Acts Chapter 4
[31] And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
[32] And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
[33] And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Acts 5
[1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
[2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
[4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Now, see where Peter says the land Ananias and Sapphira sold was their property to do with as they wished, and that the wording implies that they owned other properties as well? See also where all the money they got from the sale the land was also theirs to do with as they pleased? Notice also that the pledge they made was also completely voluntary and they could have pledged any amount they wanted to, or none at all. Then notice that it was because they lied about how much they received for the land and in spite of their vow to give all the proceeds of the sale gave only a portion of them. Their punishment was for lying, not for any amount of money that he did or did not give. God was punishing dishonesty, not promoting socialism.
The biggest difference in the giving of the early Christians and their holding everything in common, and socialism, is that everything was voluntary and motivated by the individual Christian's love for the other members of the church and their common cause of spreading the Gospel. Nobody had to ask them to do it.
In socialism giving is not voluntary. It is mandatory and done at the figurative point of the government's gun through the collection of taxes. The motives are clearly different. Christian giving is done from the love that exists in the Christian's heart, and socialism is about the power to take resources from Joe Blow and give them Jim Bob even though Joe Blow hates Jim Bob and has no desire to help Jim Bob.
It's very clear that there is no common ground between Christianity and socialism. People who hate God do not promote the principles that God promotes or model their political philosophies after God's principles of government.
LOL. Yes, it's work or starve. It's about you being responsible for yourself and the result of your decisions. Sounds like the right way for a society to conduct itself. This idea that everyone else is responsible for you and the results of your lousy decisions is a raft of crap. That's the generic you, not the personal you, because I have no idea what kind of decisions you make. I'm not denigrating you, personally, just the political theory you believe in.
I have to laugh once more though at your "thank God" because socialism is anti-God starting with the men who first thought it up, the principles it is built upon, and in the way its always been implemented.
So, some idiot without the necessary skills couldn't survive while living off the land. Big deal. What does that prove? Nothing.
First you say attempting to live as a hermit is impossible as it will get you shot or arrested, then you give an example of someone who, although he failed due to lack of skills, did what you said was impossible because he lived so far out in the boonies. Well, for your information, a hermit, by definition, wants to live where there aren't any other people around. They want to get out of society so they go where people aren't very common. A hermit is not homeless. He has a home, it's just a long ways away from where anyone else lives. He lives a solitary life by choice.
I met a hermit, whose name I have long ago forgotten, in the 60's who lived in the mountains of southern Oregon. At that time he had been living as a hermit for about 3 decades. He was living in a nice little log cabin he had built and furnished by hand. He hunted, fished, and had a large vegetable garden and that's how he fed himself. For food storage he used a root cellar. For any money or goods he couldn't make himself that he needed he would trade buckskin clothing, which he also made by hand, or pelts he had cured. He made some nice stuff too. He also had blacksmith skills and made most of the metal products he needed. He was a very talented guy who lived exactly the way he wanted to, and did it very successfully. When I met him he was a healthy guy in his late 50's or so. I was an energetic teenager and I couldn't come close to keeping up with him on a hike. It didn't matter if the trail was going uphill, downhill, or was level. His pace, which was not slow, never varied and he never seemed to tire.
The only way to reach his home was by a 5 mile hike back into the woods, and that trail, which was not marked, started from a road not very often traveled. It was a 30 mile hike for him to get the closest town, which had a population of less than 100.
There was also a guy by the name of Dick Proenneke whose life as a hermit has been documented in three documentaries, Alone in the Wilderness, The Frozen North, and Alaska: Silence and Solitude. He spent almost 40 years living there starting in the 60's and was another very talented guy who succeeded in living on his own terms away from society. He only moved back to civilization when he'd gotten to feeble from old age to do the work required to survive on his own.
I've watched the Alone in the Wilderness documentary and it's interesting. He documents some of his hunts, how he built his cabin, and what it takes to survive on your own that far from anyone else in a hostile environment like winter in the Alaskan wilderness. It's very clear that a person has to be very skilled with their hands, have a vast amount of knowledge of the flora and fauna in the area in which they choose to live, have a very high level of self-discipline and self-confidence, and the love of solitude and nature. As far as I can see, it takes a very exceptional person to live successfully as a hermit.
The concept of the Immaculate Conception is not Biblical. You will find no support for it in the Bible. It is an invention of the Catholic church from sources outside of the Bible.
OK. Then it's whoever wrote the summary that doesn't understand the difference between CEO and executive. I didn't read the entire summary. I got to the link to the article and then read the article. Guess that's what I get for not reading the summary.
Ummm..... I think you need to at least understand what you read before you criticize it. The article states that Marissa Meyer is an "executive". All upper level business administrators, such as a vice president, are executives. executive != chief exective
Slashdot Mirror
Well, why don't you spend $100 million to make a movie, and as soon as you release it I'll copy it and release it at 1/10th the price you can afford to release it at and we'll see how much copyright would have been worth to you.
I'll make more money off your investment than you will. Most likely you'll lose money as who is going to buy from you in spite your investment when they can buy the exact same thing, off the same shelf in the same store, from me for 1/10 the price?
How many more movies are you going to invest time and money in after losing most of your $100 million the first time? Are you going to keep on losing 10's of millions time and time again? How stupid would you have to be to keep on losing large sums of money not to learn that you couldn't compete with someone who just copies your work and releases it right alongside of yours?
Yeah, copyright is just pure idiocy.... It doesn't encourage anyone to invest time and money producing creative content at all.
Your argument is foolish. Both items that I took were for sale, and I didn't pay for either of them. I walked out of the store with merchandise I never paid for. In any honest person's book that is theft. It's just as much theft as if I had taken the physical book and the file as I now had the unfettered usage of both without entering into a legal transaction with the store owner to gain legal ownership of either of them.
In my eyes obtaining ownership illegally is theft as it is depriving someone else of their rightful payment. You can argue it all you want to, but your argument doesn't pass the smell test. It stinks of dishonesty.
That's correct. Cigarette smokers, of which I used to be one, have a hard time quitting.
I don't think any addictive, dangerous, health-destroying drug ought to be sold. It's a sure way to ruin your own society. Sawing yourself off at the knees isn't a viable method of promoting life, health and growth.
Ask our least transparent president other than Nixon, Obama, about that. If anything in government should be transparent it's the legislative process, and under him it's been anything but transparent.
Transparency of government operations with respect to other nations is not very often a good idea. All it will provide is an advantage to the nation you're negotiating/dealing with because the transparency will be unilateral rather than bilateral.
So, you're making a moral equivalency argument and comparing an honest opinion and taking something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it. I see no correlation between the two at all. It's not only bad logic, it's a completely illogical comparison.
I am not a police officer, nor in most places am I required to report non-violent crimes.
On moral grounds I would not report drug dealers anymore than prostitutes or homosexuals in the military. I also will not report those hacking devices they own for fun or profit. What police state do you live in?
So, you find it moral to sell highly addictive drugs that destroy people's lives. Talk to any long-time heroin addict and find out just how happy they are to be addicted, and what effect their addiction has had on their life. You'll find out that they wish they had never started, that they had never been able to find someone to sell it to them.
How can I make those claims? I'm a recovering addict. I know what damage drugs did to me, and the effect drugs had on my life. Had I never been able to buy any drugs, I would have missed out on a lot of negatives. Nobody has the right to destroy another person's life, and that's exactly what drug dealers do. They knowingly destroy lives.
That you find knowingly destroying lives the moral equivalent of being a homosexual is pretty revealing as to who you are.... In my eyes your moral philosophy is a danger to the health of our society.
Let's take a look at your logic....
You have a store in which you sell books. So, I come into your store, take the book down to the local copy shop and copy the book. I then return your book and go home and read it. Did I steal the purchase price of the book from you? Or, say you have ebooks for sale too and I bring my netbook into your store and just copy the file onto my netbook. I never pay you for it. Did I rip you off? What if everyone did exactly what I did? How long would you stay in business? And how about the author? How does he support himself when everyone just takes his work which took him anywhere from months to years to complete and cost him thousands of dollars for research travel and access to the documentation he needed to support his ideas?
If you would do a little research you would know that in 2007 the number of coyotes running wild in Chicago was estimated to be as high as 2000 at that time. They said there is no part of the greater Chicago area without a population of coyotes and that they were astonished at how well the coyote has adapted to urban living.
The press release is just about the number of coyotes that the researchers have trapped, tagged, and released.
Well, that's what you get for owning rat-dogs like chihuahuas, toy poodles, etc.... They are so small the coyotes get confused as to which species those little yappers belong to and think they're breakfast, lunch, or dinner. I can't say as I blame them, and I own a chihuahua/papillion cross. He would most definitely look like a snack to a predator such as a coyote and it's my responsibility to make sure a coyote doesn't get him, and I live on the outskirts of a small town where deer, coyotes, hawks, owls, skunks, etc... make common appearances as we are close to a game trail heading to a nearby river.
Coyotes hunt, not rob garbage cans if there is any of their natural food/prey available. It's born and bred into them. I'd much, much rather have a few coyotes around than be overrun by something like Norway or pack rats. Those buggers can kill your little dogs too, besides destroying your property and spreading disease.
Coyotes are clean, and naturally shy of human beings. They are as productive/helpful as owls, hawks, and many insects such as the preying mantis. There's a reason they are a part of the natural ecosystem.
I looks to me like Facebook is in a hurry to lose face by being the south end of a northbound horse.
Yeah, I guess I did mean Ron. When I read the article I was thinking Rand had written it and didn't looked at the author's name. My bad.
What Rand Paul said was not a call for state support of a religion. What he called for was the elimination of the state suppressing the right to the free expression of a religion. The Constitution says that Congress must pass no law establishing a state religion, and that it must not interfere with the expression of religion. Banning nativity scenes is interfering with the expression of a religion.
The very man who progressives point to saying no expression of religion should be tolerated on public property attended church in the Capitol Building. Both house of Congress and the Executive Branch gave their blessing to the Capitol Building being used as a church. Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln were among the Presidents who attended services there. Now if the very men who wrote our Constitution found nothing wrong with church being held in a government building then any other interpretation of the Constitution is wrong. They knew what they meant when they wrote it. And, 2 days after Jefferson wrote the "wall of separation" letter he attended church in the Capitol building so his letter did not put forth the ideas that so many people want to now say it does. Jefferson clearly didn't have those ideas in mind, or he would have been the first to shut down the church in the Capitol building rather than attending it for close to 10 years.
How long have you lived in Oregon?
I lived in the Portland area when Wyden first ran for the Senate ( I still live in the PNW) and he was a complete idiot as far as I was concerned. He couldn't find countries on a map of the world that were in the national news on a daily basis, and on which he was expressing public opinions as to what the US needed to do there. I mean, how can you form an intelligent opinion of what our national policy should be when you know so little about an area that you don't even know where it is, let alone what the historical conflicts were between the different cultures in that area? To me, he was in so far over his head on the issues that he made himself look completely incompetent, and I've never seen anything from him since that has changed my opinion.
I don't know why he took this stand, but I'd bet his understanding of the issue is very thin, and his stand on IT issues as a whole is self-contradictory. IMO, he most likely got this one right by throwing darts blindfolded at a board or from a coin flip.
BTW, I was a Democrat when I lived in the Portland area.
As I knew from my knowledge of the Bible, you can't support a single assertion you've made.
Sorry. You need to start showing your evidence. I'm not going to chase my tail by answering all your unsupported assertions and allow you to just keep me on the defensive. You either participate in an honest debate, or the debate is over and I will consider you to have withdrawn from the debate because you cannot support your assertions....
I'll give you some more evidence that shows Christianity is the antithesis of socialism. In the verses below, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles--that's you and me--gives direct instructions on how those who won't work to support themselves are to be treated:
KJV: II Thessalonians Chapter 3
[6]
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
[7] For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
[8] Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
[9] Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
[10] For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
[11] For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
[12] Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
Paul is most definitely teaching the direct opposite of socialism, and what's more he is commanding people to not follow the guiding principle of socialism--that everyone has a right to eat whether or not they will work and that everyone must support those who will not work. He says he taught this not only in words, but by his own actions. I'd say he makes a piss poor socialist, wouldn't you? I'd also say this shows that Christianity is a non-socialist religion
I'll be waiting on your documented refutation.
First, you have supplied no substantiation for any of your claims. No documentation whatsoever. All you've done so far is make unsupported assertions.
Second, you're completely wrong about de Toqueville's commentary. Nation-wide socialism cannot be done without the government's power to tax and enforce redistribution of wealth. The central planning and distribution that socialism on that scale requires can only be supplied by an organization with the size, scope, and power of government. You can make all the claims you want to the contrary, by it's self-evident that government must be the agent of enforcement and because of that socialism must by definition reduce the liberty of the individual. Hayek shows all of this very clearly in the Road to Serfdom. That alone makes socialism the antithesis of anything to do with Christianity.
Christianity has nothing to do with economic theory. Its goal is to ready the individual for the afterlife in which there will be no economic structure. Everyone will be self-sufficient with God at the center of all life. The Bible says that no one will build and another inhabit, or plant and another eat and that God's people will long enjoy the work of their hands. That verse alone shows there will be no buying or selling in heaven. There will be no need for it.
Third, there are no economic theories taught in the Bible. The Bible doesn't teach any political, economic, or social theories. It teaches individual responsibility: first to God, second to man. It teaches the history of this world with respect to God and the devil and how man has interacted with both. And lastly, it teaches us about human nature.
Of course I'm my brother's keeper. However, that is done through the change of my heart from selfishness to love for my fellow man, not by government edict which can never accomplish a change of heart.
A right-wing fantasy of socialism? Really? Just how do you justify this statement seeing that Christianity is a religion, a way of living by faith that affects all parts of the believer's life, and that socialism is nothing more than an economic theory?
Are you a Christian? Do you practice Christianity and believe that Christ is your savior? Do you believe you need the forgiveness of your sins that only God can provide and that He has the moral and legal right to tell you how to live every aspect of your life? Where are these concepts taught in
socialism because if socialism is a Christian philosophy it would point to Christ as the real solution to the world's problems? I see that done no where in socialistic theory.
Also, since you've done nothing but make unsubstantiated claims show your supposed proof from scripture that socialism is taught in the Bible? Where is your evidence? So far you've shown none.
It's very clear you know nothing about the Bible, the principles of Christianity, or the teachings of Christ, when you make the claims you do.
Here's Peter refuting your idea of conflating socialism and Christianity completely.
KJV: Acts Chapter 4
[31]
And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
[32] And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
[33] And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Acts 5
[1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
[2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
[3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
[4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Now, see where Peter says the land Ananias and Sapphira sold was their property to do with as they wished, and that the wording implies that they owned other properties as well? See also where all the money they got from the sale the land was also theirs to do with as they pleased? Notice also that the pledge they made was also completely voluntary and they could have pledged any amount they wanted to, or none at all. Then notice that it was because they lied about how much they received for the land and in spite of their vow to give all the proceeds of the sale gave only a portion of them. Their punishment was for lying, not for any amount of money that he did or did not give. God was punishing dishonesty, not promoting socialism.
The biggest difference in the giving of the early Christians and their holding everything in common, and socialism, is that everything was voluntary and motivated by the individual Christian's love for the other members of the church and their common cause of spreading the Gospel. Nobody had to ask them to do it.
In socialism giving is not voluntary. It is mandatory and done at the figurative point of the government's gun through the collection of taxes. The motives are clearly different. Christian giving is done from the love that exists in the Christian's heart, and socialism is about the power to take resources from Joe Blow and give them Jim Bob even though Joe Blow hates Jim Bob and has no desire to help Jim Bob.
It's very clear that there is no common ground between Christianity and socialism. People who hate God do not promote the principles that God promotes or model their political philosophies after God's principles of government.
LOL. Yes, it's work or starve. It's about you being responsible for yourself and the result of your decisions. Sounds like the right way for a society to conduct itself. This idea that everyone else is responsible for you and the results of your lousy decisions is a raft of crap. That's the generic you, not the personal you, because I have no idea what kind of decisions you make. I'm not denigrating you, personally, just the political theory you believe in.
I have to laugh once more though at your "thank God" because socialism is anti-God starting with the men who first thought it up, the principles it is built upon, and in the way its always been implemented.
So, some idiot without the necessary skills couldn't survive while living off the land. Big deal. What does that prove? Nothing.
First you say attempting to live as a hermit is impossible as it will get you shot or arrested, then you give an example of someone who, although he failed due to lack of skills, did what you said was impossible because he lived so far out in the boonies. Well, for your information, a hermit, by definition, wants to live where there aren't any other people around. They want to get out of society so they go where people aren't very common. A hermit is not homeless. He has a home, it's just a long ways away from where anyone else lives. He lives a solitary life by choice.
I met a hermit, whose name I have long ago forgotten, in the 60's who lived in the mountains of southern Oregon. At that time he had been living as a hermit for about 3 decades. He was living in a nice little log cabin he had built and furnished by hand. He hunted, fished, and had a large vegetable garden and that's how he fed himself. For food storage he used a root cellar. For any money or goods he couldn't make himself that he needed he would trade buckskin clothing, which he also made by hand, or pelts he had cured. He made some nice stuff too. He also had blacksmith skills and made most of the metal products he needed. He was a very talented guy who lived exactly the way he wanted to, and did it very successfully. When I met him he was a healthy guy in his late 50's or so. I was an energetic teenager and I couldn't come close to keeping up with him on a hike. It didn't matter if the trail was going uphill, downhill, or was level. His pace, which was not slow, never varied and he never seemed to tire.
The only way to reach his home was by a 5 mile hike back into the woods, and that trail, which was not marked, started from a road not very often traveled. It was a 30 mile hike for him to get the closest town, which had a population of less than 100.
There was also a guy by the name of Dick Proenneke whose life as a hermit has been documented in three documentaries, Alone in the Wilderness, The Frozen North, and Alaska: Silence and Solitude. He spent almost 40 years living there starting in the 60's and was another very talented guy who succeeded in living on his own terms away from society. He only moved back to civilization when he'd gotten to feeble from old age to do the work required to survive on his own.
I've watched the Alone in the Wilderness documentary and it's interesting. He documents some of his hunts, how he built his cabin, and what it takes to survive on your own that far from anyone else in a hostile environment like winter in the Alaskan wilderness. It's very clear that a person has to be very skilled with their hands, have a vast amount of knowledge of the flora and fauna in the area in which they choose to live, have a very high level of self-discipline and self-confidence, and the love of solitude and nature. As far as I can see, it takes a very exceptional person to live successfully as a hermit.
The concept of the Immaculate Conception is not Biblical. You will find no support for it in the Bible. It is an invention of the Catholic church from sources outside of the Bible.
OK. Then it's whoever wrote the summary that doesn't understand the difference between CEO and executive. I didn't read the entire summary. I got to the link to the article and then read the article. Guess that's what I get for not reading the summary.
Ummm..... I think you need to at least understand what you read before you criticize it. The article states that Marissa Meyer is an "executive". All upper level business administrators, such as a vice president, are executives. executive != chief exective
Well, that accounts for your choice of user name.... ;)