05 Mar 10
Originally posted by rwingettI am not necessarily in disagreement with you. However I must point out that we have a similar system in the villages in Zambia. In general wealth and success are frowned upon. And when I say 'frowned upon' I mean you can be accused of witchcraft. There are many consequences:
The rich write the rules, which they write primarily to benefit the rich. In my universe to be among the richest individuals in a world where millions routinely starve would be crime punishable by death. At year's end I would smite the 100 richest people in the world. This would continue year after year until vast inequalities in wealth came to be universal ...[text shortened]... mount of sacrifice. That, my friend, is what any god worthy of the name should be doing.
1. People hide their wealth.
2. People do not strive for greater wealth as there is no benefit.
3. People who do want to succeed must go somewhere else (someone from somewhere else getting rich is more acceptable).
4. People squander excess wealth (spend it all on beer etc).
I am also not convinced that in the current world order, smiting the richest people would benefit the poor. There would be a competition to not be the richest, but that does not mean they would give to the poor or help the poor get wealthier. The only long term solution for the poor is giving them better education and opportunities - which is a long term plan - and I don't believe your proposal would make people think longer term nor be more generous.
05 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeySo you agree it isn't fair? So who invented this unfair system? Who perpetuates it? Why?
But we get punished for our parents short comings all the time. Why not throw their genes in the mix? I mean, if your parents are alcoholics, you will suffer if you are their child. If they are molestors, you will suffer from their sin etc.
So is it fair that the "innocent" suffer from other peoples sin? No. But then again, the same happened to Christ and he never said it was fair either.
If you were God, would you make it fairer?
05 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour thought patterns are more consistent with that of a petty bureaucrat than of a god.
I am not necessarily in disagreement with you. However I must point out that we have a similar system in the villages in Zambia. In general wealth and success are frowned upon. And when I say 'frowned upon' I mean you can be accused of witchcraft. There are many consequences:
1. People hide their wealth.
2. People do not strive for greater wealth as the ...[text shortened]... - and I don't believe your proposal would make people think longer term nor be more generous.
1. You could not hide your wealth from my all-seeing gaze.
2. Smiting the richest 100 does not remove incentive. I am not equalizing all wealth. I am merely lessening the level of disparity. There is plenty of room to succeed without becoming opulently wealthy while millions starve.
3. There would be nowhere you could go to escape my wrath.
4. If people had tangible proof that there was divine justice in the world, they would make better decisions.
If the opulently wealthy face the prospect of imminent annihilation, then I would wager that world conditions would change dramatically in a very short time. The rich have no incentive to change now, so things never change.
05 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain, sin is what makes in unfair. So that must be dealt with, but how?
So you agree it isn't fair? So who invented this unfair system? Who perpetuates it? Why?
If you were God, would you make it fairer?
As I have said before, I don't believe God created sin. Sin does not actually exist becuase it is merely deciding not to love much like darkness does not actually exist, rather, it is simply a statement about a lack of light.
05 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually, it would be more like if you took out my sons eye I could do the same to your son. As for what I think about the eye for an eye rule, I am not a big fan even though there is an element of justice to it when "innocent" people are not involved. I think CHrist would agree as we saw in the NT as he showed mercy on the woman caught in adultry. There is a better way.
Interesting speculation. It tells us something about your sense of justice. So you believe that the 'eye for an eye' rule works not only on individuals but on families, societies, races etc? If you take out my eye, can I take out your sons eye? What about your countryman's sons eye? I just want to understand what the logic is here.
05 Mar 10
Originally posted by rwingettActually I was merely pointing out what happens in Zambian villages. I fully agree that an omnipotent God would be very different from and have different results to a bunch of jealous villagers.
Your thought patterns are more consistent with that of a petty bureaucrat than of a god.
1. You could not hide your wealth from my all-seeing gaze.
But you could squander it. You didn't say anything about giving it to the poor.
2. Smiting the richest 100 does not remove incentive. I am not equalizing all wealth. I am merely lessening the level of disparity. There is plenty of room to succeed without becoming opulently wealthy while millions starve.
I have to point out that above a certain level of wealth, it is all really just numbers. They don't actually spend that wealth or use it for anything in particular. They cant. If you took 1 billion dollars off Bill Gates it wouldn't affect his lifestyle in the slightest. Its all imaginary money.
4. If people had tangible proof that there was divine justice in the world, they would make better decisions.
Or try to trick the system. People tend to make decisions that favor themselves in some way. I am not convinced that your motivation will make those decisions better.
If the opulently wealthy face the prospect of imminent annihilation, then I would wager that world conditions would change dramatically in a very short time. The rich have no incentive to change now, so things never change.
I think the problem has little or nothing to do with the top 100 richest. You would have to deal with a lot more than the richest 100. You would need to go for the richest 10 million at least.
05 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe poverty of your imagination is staggering. If a god came down to earth and smote the richest 100 people, do you think there would be no repercussions to that event? Do you think 100 people would die while everything else continued on as normal? The shockwaves throughout society would be staggering. If the poor had tangible proof that god really was on their side, while the rich were demonstrably punished for their avarice, everything would change. The death of the 100 richest would merely be the catalyst for enormous social change throughout the world.
Actually I was merely pointing out what happens in Zambian villages. I fully agree that an omnipotent God would be very different from and have different results to a bunch of jealous villagers.
1. You could not hide your wealth from my all-seeing gaze.
But you could squander it. You didn't say anything about giving it to the poor.
2. Sm th a lot more than the richest 100. You would need to go for the richest 10 million at least.
And that is part of the point I have been making. As a god, I would not save anyone. My agenda would be to prod people into saving themselves. They could devise any system they wanted as long as a few basic criteria were met, the most pressing of which would be that opulent wealth and starvation cannot co-exist.
05 Mar 10
Originally posted by rwingettThis term [property] in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual." In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage...
The poverty of your imagination is staggering. If a god came down to earth and smote the richest 100 people, do you think there would be no repercussions to that event? Do you think 100 people would die while everything else continued on as normal? The shockwaves throughout society would be staggering. If the poor had tangible proof that god really was on t ...[text shortened]... ere met, the most pressing of which would be that opulent wealth and starvation cannot co-exist.
...Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected...
...That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where...monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called."
James Madison
March 29, 1792
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?document=57
05 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFor an aspiring god I must be pretty daft, because I do not see your point here. But then again, I have specifically renounced any claim to omniscience.
This term [property] in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual." In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advant ison
March 29, 1792
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?document=57
05 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettYou don't see his point? Try answering his prayers. 😀
For an aspiring god I must be pretty daft, because I do not see your point here. But then again, I have specifically renounced any claim to omniscience.
I'm beginning to have doubts about your ability to assume the job rwingett.
05 Mar 10
Originally posted by rwingettBut why only pick on the 100 richest people? It seems to me that if others are able to help the poor but do nothing they are equally guilty. In fact, Christ once said that a widow who gave a small amount of money to charity gave more than those giving great amounts of money soley on the basis she was giving all she had. So do you think Christ was in error in this assessment?
No, that's not true. I am not among the 100 richest people, or the 10,000 richest people. The number of people smitten over time is actually quite small. Only the very richest would suffer from my wrath.
If those rich individuals could see that they were up for a smiting next then of course they could redeem themselves. Get rid of enough money to not be ...[text shortened]... to figure out. I would take genuine pleasure in seeing what solutions they could come up with.
Also, what about all the murderers and molestors and evangelical Christians running around. Are you telling me you would leave them be so long as they are not the 100 richest people in the world?
05 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyI'm just trying to set the tenor for how things should be by picking off the richest 100. That in itself may accomplish little or nothing, but my hunch is that it would have dramatic and far reaching reverberations throughout society.
But why only pick on the 100 richest people? It seems to me that if others are able to help the poor but do nothing they are equally guilty. In fact, Christ once said that a widow who gave a small amount of money to charity gave more than those giving great amounts of money soley on the basis she was giving all she had. So do you think Christ was in error ...[text shortened]... telling me you would leave them be so long as they are not the 100 richest people in the world?
Of course a person of little means who gives to charity should be esteemed. But I don't reward people. My goal is merely to prod them into making their own rewards. Don't look to me to save you. You're all going to have to save yourselves. As a god I would try to nudge you in that direction.
Murderers, molesters and evangelical Christians would also see their worst offenders smitten at the end of the year. There are many crimes which would attract my attention, but smiting the rich seems to have fixated the audience here.
06 Mar 10
Originally posted by rwingettI am simply not convinced that your methods would have the effect you think they would. I don't think that is lack of imagination.
The poverty of your imagination is staggering.
My agenda would be to prod people into saving themselves.
I do not believe that punishment is the best way to do things. I believe it shows a failure on behalf of the parent / God to take more proactive measures. I do not dispute that punishment often works (I am generally in favor of having a criminal justice system), but am convinced that in the vast majority of cases there are better solutions.
If your aim is to get people to be more charitable, then why not encourage them to do so out of a genuine feeling of charity rather than fear? If your aim to to reduce inequality then why not go for high taxes for the rich and universal health care?
I am curious as to whether you would implement a similar policy if you were a fully human dictator. ie shoot the 100 wealthiest citizens once a year.