Those are great questions and I applaud you for asking the most appropriate questions related to socialism I have ever seen on this site. ...
I have so much renewed confidence in socialism because I have yet to meet a person who understands socialism and is against it. Most people against it are against it because capitalists have tricked them into believing it is necessarily authoritarian, it eliminates personal property, eliminates personal freedom, the USSR revived, or is just welfare for everything.
...
You are for it because you don't understand it. If you lived under the socialist system you would understand it. Humans are all different, different skills, personalities, and ambitions. When you equalize the outcomes, you kill incentives to work harder than the guy next to you. This leads to poor productivity, and the economy eventually collapses on its own weight. Smart people leave and go elsewhere and you are left with idiots who cannot tie their own shoes never mind run a complex economic system. Be careful what you wish for. Where did you get the idea that socialists want to equalize outcomes? Definitely not in my platform or any of the other links I posted. Sounds like the same old straw man and further affirms my quoted point. I argue for democratic socialism, post platforms, and ideological explanations and capitalists STILL argue against the stalinist model. People who don't understand socialism also seem to believe in a one dimensional political compass which means they are unaware of about half of all political ideologies. You are even not sure about what you really want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production (including wealth) are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government"If you own the factory collectively with all the drunks that don't show up for work, but who control the factory as much as you, no matter how hard you work, how is this not the equality of outcome? Collective ownership does not mean equal salary and your share of the wealth would likely depend on your share of the work. There is no specifically prescribed way that this would be done, as workers would vote on it democratically, but most cooperatives have rules and penalties in place for showing up to work. Keep in mind the entire purpose it to give the wealth to the people who produced it and not some lazy person who isn't even there. That is how we feel about capitalism. Sooner or later you end up stratifying the socialist society and you end up either with a centralized system with a Politburo at the top or a decentralized commune style of Columbian guerrillas.
Guess what? It takes intelligence to accumulate wealth, make it productive and grow. If you just distribute (by confiscation) the wealth owned by capitalists to people who know nothing about the capital, you are going to waste a lot of resources and in the end, everybody will be hungry and willing to rob their neighbor or sell their 14-old daughter for a bag of rice. Check out Venezuela, or Cuba.
You really have not thought it through.
There is a reason why most rich people are intelligent and most poor people are simpletons. You still end up with more educated people accumulating more wealth In a democracy decisions are made upwards. The government is not dictating downwards how company decisions must be made. Its hard for our minds to grasp how true democracy works because we have only seen governments where decisions made at the top are enforced downwards. Perhaps there are still socialists who want to confiscate wealth but that is a very fringe type of socialist. We simply want to make sure no new wealth is confiscated. You are advocating for the destruction of a social structure that worked for hundreds of years and replacing it with your idea of a fair system? How are you going to reward entrepreneurs, doctors, engineers and punish lazy workers who screw up the costly production lines? Giving everyone their fair say and fair share doesn't mean talented people cannot be rewarded more for their work. Worker cooperatives already exist and some are very successful. Most cooperatives vote on a salary structure and many have rules where the person at the top can only make x times the person at the bottom. They all vote on x and they vote in the interest of making the company function because if they vote in a way that runs away the rare talent, then their own job will not be sustainable. Any system in place for penalizing lazy workers in a capitalist company could still be implemented in a cooperative. The difference is that they have democratically agreed to these systems. Again, people don't want to work while lazy people next to them benefit, so they wouldn't vote on measures to structure the company that way. Large cooperatives vote on board members but always have the ability to call a vote to replace them or overrule an unpopular decision. Cooperatives that make "bad" decisions will end up with less money to share while more successful cooperatives that make "good" decisions will be the ones that attract and reward talent, make more money, and end up with more wealth to share. Entrepreneurs who do not have people working under them would not be affected at all as they are the "workers" and already own the means of production. Are you going to force brilliant surgeons to work for minimum wage (decided by the hospital maintenance workers)? Are you going to kill or imprison all the intellectuals? If not, your system will fall apart as the intellectuals will expose the obvious inefficiencies and faults in it. No brilliant doctor or engineer would want voluntarily stay in your system. Why? because they will not be able to start their own businesses and run them the way they envision them. If someone knows of an obvious inefficiency or fault in a company, then they will bring it up at a stakeholder meeting, propose what they are recommending, and people would vote on the change because at the end of the day, they have vested interest in the success of the company they work for and own. Any company that offered highly skilled professionals minimum wage, would not have any highly skilled professionals and would not have a company. If one cooperative fails, it doesn't mean the entire system fails just like if I open a business and that business fails, the economy doesn't crash. The important thing about a bottom up democratic system is that the largest level of decision making is done at the local community level. It seems you are thinking about the entire economy running as one cooperative instead of thousands of small ones. I don't like the doctor example because healthcare is a controversial sector, but lets say its any other sector because your point still stands. If a brilliant engineer has his own ideas, he could propose them to other cooperatives, become a consultant, or start his own company with these core ideas. Workers woul flock to join his cooperative and invest their labor because of his great ideas. Who is going to invest in your made-up system if you eliminate the private ownership? What we mean by social ownership is that ownership of the means of production is never attached to one person. The key is to distinguish between personal property and private property. Each person has thier personal property. Their home and belongings but no ownership over the personal property of others. You cannot have a large factory or apartment building owned by a single person. For cooperative companies, the workers of the company all own the company together. Ownership and decision making is only made by the people affected by the actions of the company. No external shareholders. This means no one person should own another person nor should they own another person's personal property which is required to live (labor, home, etc) . Workers invest their labor by working Workers will be deciding what the input costs are? Are you nuts? Production costs, as well as the prices of products, should be driven by the free market. Any artificial tinkering with the economic forces only leads to more chaos down the road. Your cooperatives will have to synch prices with other companies etc. This eventually leads to central planning. And we all know how this ends. Cooperative prices are still driven by the market. Executives decide on salaries and base those decisions on market analysis. All of those processes still exist in a cooperatives, its just that the decisions are made via democracy (or elected peer executives beholden to the workers) instead of dictatorship. How does this lead to central planning?
You need to have private ownership, otherwise, all smart people will pack and leave your little experiment. And you will end up with morons who will run your factories to the ground.
There are plenty of very successful worker cooperatives that not only have not been run to the ground, but lead their industry. I've been fascinated with Mondragon in Spain. Why would smart people leave because there is no external ownership? As you stated, any moron can own a captalist company with no knowledge of how the company functions. How is that better for the smart people in the company? I would not want to live in a society where I cannot own multiple properties, own shares in companies, and accumulate wealth.
Are you going to eliminate personal collections or say 50+ sports cars, or expensive art pieces?
Why would we limit what people can buy? People can buy whatever they want.
In the capitalist system, anyone can own Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Amazon or Apple. In your system, you will only own a share of the company where you work. How would this make you rich or financially independent? You will always depend on the other schmucks that own your company.
You are paid more because there is no profit being extracted from your work. If you don't like your company, you go to a company with more motivated workers and make more money. The thing is, when people work for their own company, they tend to work harder than they would when working for the man. What you can't do is earn a fortune off of other peoples' work without working at all. If your goal is to earn "passive income" or become rich through something other than work, then no, this system is not for you and you will be absolutely miserable. Do you even have a basic financial education?
In your socialist system, financial mobility would not be possible. It would be more like a feudal system where workers will be chained to their workplaces. I don't even know how would this work. You are born, you go to school, you graduate, you are given a share in a company and a job that goes with it and work there for the rest of your life? Nothing about this says you have to work for one company for your entire life. Also, nothing is stopping you from moving up in your company. Nothing is stopping your company from doing something great and making you a fortune . The only difference is that you have to work to be part of the rewards and not working disqualifies you from the rewards. We're talking about a system that incentivizes work.
In the capitalist system, you have the freedom. You can invest your hard earned money or spend it on useless gadgets. You can change jobs, you can ask for more money, you can start companies, invent new products etc.
Nothing about the system I have described would stop you from doing any of this.You do not understand how the capitalist system works. I am guessing you have never attended a shareholder's meeting. You just want the free stuff, but in the end, you will keep the system operating the way it is operating today, i.e. owners decide what is best for the company. You just want to change the ownership. From rich to poor. I am telling you that there is a reason why most poor people are poor and why most rich people are rich. You want to re-distribute the wealth with a stroke of the pen ignoring the underlying root causes. BTW, how do you become the owner in multiple companies in your socialist system, i.e. how do you move from company to company? Buy shares? I thought you are against private ownership? I don't get the system you are describing, and I think you do not get it either. Do you want to start co-operatives? Go ahead, who is stopping you. But don't force others to subscribe to your ill-devised business plans. |
|
|
|
I have no idea how you think people can do that when most people don't even own fields, animals, or modern capital (the means of production). Our entire criticism of capitalism is based around the disconnect between labor and capital.
Oh, I see so people are entitled to land, animals, and capital now? Who's property rights do you have to violate to provide this capitol to these people by force? Don't tell me no force is involved, because if it was voluntary it would be called charity. Socialism requires taking property rights of some to give to others. This is not even debatable, it is a law of economics. Because of this Socialism will inevitably degrade into totalitarianism as the pool of people who can be robbed shrinks ever smaller until the working class begins eating itself. The only disconnect is in your brain stem where you claim you can entitle people to capital without taking rights from others. 1. It was you who said this is ALREADY being achieved. Please explain how it is being achieved. 2. Socialism doesn't require taking property rights of some to go give to others. Some socialist systems use that means to the end of worker ownership, but the one I subscribe to only distributes new wealth to the workers who generated it. Over time, it is the workers who accumulate wealth. When you have absolute beliefs about things and say something always happens, it leads you to being close minded regarding said issue. The idea that you just happened to be born at a time where society has reached a point where everything functions optimally and cannot be improved is naive. Yes, I said people already have the right to work their own land and raise their own animals. Everything else is bullshit you made up to try to speak for me because the only way you can argue with me is by literally making shit up, pretending I said it, then arguing against that instead of my actual arguments. Socialism ABSOLUTELY DOES require taking property rights by force. You claim everyone is entitled to all this capital, but you never seem to be able to explain how all this capital they are entitled to just comes into existence magically. SOCIALISM REQUIRES THE STATE TO TAKE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO GIVE IT TO OTHERS THEREFORE IS INHERENTLY TOTALITARIAN. *Entitled to* has a specific meaning. You have now changed the quote to fit what you meant which is fine, you clarified it, but don't act like I made up the original quote or you saying it was already true. Capital can be purchased. New capital is always purchased. Land can be purchased. Anything currently owned by one person can be purchased by a group of people. Yes if you wanted to instantly transform into a socialist economy and quickly move towards communism, then the government needs to take pre-existing capital but socialists in my school of thought realize that fast transitions are not feasible. I already explained government financing but you skipped over it. The government finances capitalism all of the time. TARP, the auto bailout, and amazon is getting 2 billion dollars to build an HQ2 they were already going to build. Yes, entitled to does have a specific meaning. I didn't change anything, you invented an argument for me and I clarified my position to refute you speaking for me. I see so, if the taking of other people's property rights is slower that makes it ok? Well that is different! You haven't explained government financing AT ALL. You stated government will give subsidies and entitlements to groups as if those resources just appear with a pen stroke. I haven't skipped over anything. YOU CAN NOT EXPLAIN WHERE THESE RESOURCES WILL COME FROM. Just claiming you have is not good enough. Government handouts have nothing to do with Capitalism (except that Capitalism pays for them), and just because they are beginning to be corrupted with Socialist policies is not proof they are working or a good thing. I don't think we should take people's property at all. Resources already exist. Goods and services come from labor. Money is created with a key stroke. 1. The supermarket in a community closes down2. All workers are out of a job 3. Workers form a solid cooperative business plan 4. Government approves business plan and grants cooperative initial operating costs 5. Supermarket functions with workers sharing the small profits on top of their fair pay. Notice the supermarket was not stolen from anyone but now the workers own it. Steps 3-5 could be repeated for new businesses. Steps 1-5 could be repeated when businesses a community needs close down. Eventually you end up with an economy that addresses the needs of the community and is completely owned by workers who also live in that community. Someone owned the building and the land the supermarket was operating from. The building was sold to someone else when the supermarket closed down. You are suggesting the building is taken away from the rightful owner and given away to workers. That is what Soviets did to kulaks. And you think it is a good idea? You need to be locked up. You are planning all-out robberies. FBI should be investigating you. Do you even know what the property rights are? Nothing is being stolen and I never suggested that. Please stop trying to make this about the Soviets. I don't think we should take people's property at all.
Resources already exist.
Goods and services come from labor.
Money is created with a key stroke.
1. The supermarket in a community closes down
2. All workers are out of a job
3. Workers form a solid cooperative business plan
4. Government approves business plan and grants cooperative initial operating costs
5. Supermarket functions with workers sharing the small profits on top of their fair pay.
Notice the supermarket was not stolen from anyone but now the workers own it. Steps 3-5 could be repeated for new businesses. Steps 1-5 could be repeated when businesses a community needs close down.
Eventually you end up with an economy that addresses the needs of the community and is completely owned by workers who also live in that community.
Resources already exist, and they already have owners. Goods come from NATURAL RESOURCES as well as labor. You can not print resources no matter how much money you print. Also if you knew anything about economics you would know simply creating new money results in inflation by debasing its buying power. This is nothing but a form of theft from current note holders of the currency you create more of. You claim you are for protecting people's property rights, yet you advocate for an ideology that will do so with zero explanation of how they will come into control of these resources without stealing the rights of others. Some one still owns that supermarket property before the workers magically acquire it. If you are suggesting they pay for it, then nothing in your hypothetical is prevented by the current standing system of Capitalism. Not only is Socialism not needed, it is really just what everyone else calls "Capitalism". Creating money does not necessarily decrease buying power. You seem to have an oversimplified understanding of monetary policy. Yes if you increase money supply without increasing economic output then you decrease buying power, but in this context, that only happens once the economy is already running at full capacity. Running at full capacity means all of the economy's resources are already put to use and you have more money chasing fewer goods. When the money is being used to put people to work and create businesses, you won't see this effect until no more resources (employees, buildings, or raw materials) are available to be purchased. You should fear deflation just as much as inflation and having resources sit idle is not a good thing for the economy. Also, the our purchasing power has been in steady decline for decades. Have you never noticed the debt? People only mention it as a doomsday scenario when we talk about using the new money to help people instead of using it to help large corporations. Its really not that big of a deal if the economy is doing well. Yes the reform policies I am suggesting would take place within the current system. Thats the point. Its within reach. Current tax code is not very cooperative friendly and actually makes them pretty much illegal in a lot of states. Those would need to be updated as well to treat worker cooperatives as nonprofits. There aren't many lawyers who have the training to deal with cooperative disputes either. Very unfavorable right now yet there are still very successful worker cooperatives because the model is so superior. What if all building owners refuse to lease to your socialist co-operatives. But instead will operate their own businesses hiring people at $5/hr? What you are going to do? Where you are going to get the building to operate your socialist co-operative? You are going to confiscate the private property sooner or later. Just be honest about your plan. If your socialist workers want to buy the building, they have to come up with the money (gold or bitcoin as your socialist money will not be worth much) and buy it from the owner. Then they can operate whatever business they want. There will be nothing socialist about it. Just a bunch of guys working in a limited partnership arrangement. |
|
|
|
I have no idea how you think people can do that when most people don't even own fields, animals, or modern capital (the means of production). Our entire criticism of capitalism is based around the disconnect between labor and capital.
Oh, I see so people are entitled to land, animals, and capital now? Who's property rights do you have to violate to provide this capitol to these people by force? Don't tell me no force is involved, because if it was voluntary it would be called charity. Socialism requires taking property rights of some to give to others. This is not even debatable, it is a law of economics. Because of this Socialism will inevitably degrade into totalitarianism as the pool of people who can be robbed shrinks ever smaller until the working class begins eating itself. The only disconnect is in your brain stem where you claim you can entitle people to capital without taking rights from others. 1. It was you who said this is ALREADY being achieved. Please explain how it is being achieved. 2. Socialism doesn't require taking property rights of some to go give to others. Some socialist systems use that means to the end of worker ownership, but the one I subscribe to only distributes new wealth to the workers who generated it. Over time, it is the workers who accumulate wealth. When you have absolute beliefs about things and say something always happens, it leads you to being close minded regarding said issue. The idea that you just happened to be born at a time where society has reached a point where everything functions optimally and cannot be improved is naive. Yes, I said people already have the right to work their own land and raise their own animals. Everything else is bullshit you made up to try to speak for me because the only way you can argue with me is by literally making shit up, pretending I said it, then arguing against that instead of my actual arguments. Socialism ABSOLUTELY DOES require taking property rights by force. You claim everyone is entitled to all this capital, but you never seem to be able to explain how all this capital they are entitled to just comes into existence magically. SOCIALISM REQUIRES THE STATE TO TAKE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO GIVE IT TO OTHERS THEREFORE IS INHERENTLY TOTALITARIAN. *Entitled to* has a specific meaning. You have now changed the quote to fit what you meant which is fine, you clarified it, but don't act like I made up the original quote or you saying it was already true. Capital can be purchased. New capital is always purchased. Land can be purchased. Anything currently owned by one person can be purchased by a group of people. Yes if you wanted to instantly transform into a socialist economy and quickly move towards communism, then the government needs to take pre-existing capital but socialists in my school of thought realize that fast transitions are not feasible. I already explained government financing but you skipped over it. The government finances capitalism all of the time. TARP, the auto bailout, and amazon is getting 2 billion dollars to build an HQ2 they were already going to build. Yes, entitled to does have a specific meaning. I didn't change anything, you invented an argument for me and I clarified my position to refute you speaking for me. I see so, if the taking of other people's property rights is slower that makes it ok? Well that is different! You haven't explained government financing AT ALL. You stated government will give subsidies and entitlements to groups as if those resources just appear with a pen stroke. I haven't skipped over anything. YOU CAN NOT EXPLAIN WHERE THESE RESOURCES WILL COME FROM. Just claiming you have is not good enough. Government handouts have nothing to do with Capitalism (except that Capitalism pays for them), and just because they are beginning to be corrupted with Socialist policies is not proof they are working or a good thing. I don't think we should take people's property at all. Resources already exist. Goods and services come from labor. Money is created with a key stroke. 1. The supermarket in a community closes down2. All workers are out of a job 3. Workers form a solid cooperative business plan 4. Government approves business plan and grants cooperative initial operating costs 5. Supermarket functions with workers sharing the small profits on top of their fair pay. Notice the supermarket was not stolen from anyone but now the workers own it. Steps 3-5 could be repeated for new businesses. Steps 1-5 could be repeated when businesses a community needs close down. Eventually you end up with an economy that addresses the needs of the community and is completely owned by workers who also live in that community. Someone owned the building and the land the supermarket was operating from. The building was sold to someone else when the supermarket closed down. You are suggesting the building is taken away from the rightful owner and given away to workers. That is what Soviets did to kulaks. And you think it is a good idea? You need to be locked up. You are planning all-out robberies. FBI should be investigating you. Do you even know what the property rights are? |
|
|
|
Suicide rates and depression are rising because of Capitalism. Workers are getting screwed over, the wealth they create is stolen.
I know a lot of you, especially americans are brainwashed.
-Climate change is a direct result of a profit driven society, environment doesn't matter only the dollar
-"hurr durr socialism/communism never worked millions died hurr durr" Capitalism has killed much more people directly with poverty, inability to afford healthcare, etc
-. Capitalism is nothing but slavery with a new name, owners of capital are the slave masters
-
If you think you create wealth as a worker, ask for more money or go work somewhere else where your "wealth creation skills" will be recognized. If not, you can start your own company and create wealth for yourself. Stop complaining about other people's wealth. Fix yours. Capitalism is the best, natural system to separate and reward people based on their skills.Early in my engineering career, I recognized that I needed to go solo, so I quit after 2 years at a multinational company and was immediately hired as an independent consultant by their competitor and paid four times as much. Then I started my own consulting company which I sold 30 years later. Don't be afraid to demand more money from the "evil capitalists" or better yet, become one. Invest early, save as much as you can, live within your means, retire early and enjoy your life. Whatever you do, don't complain. Nobody likes lazy people who complain for no apparent reason. Capitalism is not a good force, at least not any longer. It causes some to buy up medical companies with good cures and kill the medicine, just to protect older patents which has not yielded profit yet, money > medicine. Some also prevent curing dieases while there are expensive medicines that slows a disease down, money > life. We frac, use tar sand, drill oil at sea and devastate rain forests to export meat, money > environment. We work and work and most of the tax money goes to paying national dept interest and the military sector, money devastates our planet and creates a war machine to protect it. We must have better goals then this, when money is the goal, we only enter a state of cyclical consumption, things are simply made and thrown away over and over. A good society should not behave like this, it should stagnate and be maintained like anything else that has been created to its optimal state. When privatization hit the health care sector and schools in my country it went to shit right away. Rich areas got better schools and hospitals instantly, leaving large groups with few teachers and long health care waiting times in the poorer and more overpopulated areas. Capitalism leads to corruption and violence on a grand scale. There is no dam room to start your own company, if 3 billion did that right now do you think they will have costumers??? Do you thing the system can support everyone to get rich from working? NO, it is designed to make very few very rich and put the rest in day labor, going from pay check to pay check, your story is great but this feat can only be achieved by a very few, the economy is NOT growing, it is impossible for a company to grow without another LOOSING value, its just quick maths, simple facts  Resources today is being used to profit, even water are being used to make nice cloths and produce meat, while many have none to DRINK. This is insane, waste away water to create products that only a few % of humanity can afford or enjoy, when we run out of clean water, is capitalism still good? when we have no rain forests and massive amounts of pollution due to capitalistic interests and our atmosphere goes to crap, is it still good? Anyhow capitalism will be what destroys the earth, we already behave like a virus for the earth and we are growing fast in numbers while the economy is stagnated = more poverty + depletion of resources. The capitalist system is the best system invented by humans. Protection of the environment and natural resources should be the job of the government. The rules should be set by the government agencies not ingrained in the "economic system". |
|
|
|
Those are great questions and I applaud you for asking the most appropriate questions related to socialism I have ever seen on this site. ...
I have so much renewed confidence in socialism because I have yet to meet a person who understands socialism and is against it. Most people against it are against it because capitalists have tricked them into believing it is necessarily authoritarian, it eliminates personal property, eliminates personal freedom, the USSR revived, or is just welfare for everything.
...
You are for it because you don't understand it. If you lived under the socialist system you would understand it. Humans are all different, different skills, personalities, and ambitions. When you equalize the outcomes, you kill incentives to work harder than the guy next to you. This leads to poor productivity, and the economy eventually collapses on its own weight. Smart people leave and go elsewhere and you are left with idiots who cannot tie their own shoes never mind run a complex economic system. Be careful what you wish for. Where did you get the idea that socialists want to equalize outcomes? Definitely not in my platform or any of the other links I posted. Sounds like the same old straw man and further affirms my quoted point. I argue for democratic socialism, post platforms, and ideological explanations and capitalists STILL argue against the stalinist model. People who don't understand socialism also seem to believe in a one dimensional political compass which means they are unaware of about half of all political ideologies. You are even not sure about what you really want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production (including wealth) are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government"If you own the factory collectively with all the drunks that don't show up for work, but who control the factory as much as you, no matter how hard you work, how is this not the equality of outcome? Collective ownership does not mean equal salary and your share of the wealth would likely depend on your share of the work. There is no specifically prescribed way that this would be done, as workers would vote on it democratically, but most cooperatives have rules and penalties in place for showing up to work. Keep in mind the entire purpose it to give the wealth to the people who produced it and not some lazy person who isn't even there. That is how we feel about capitalism. Sooner or later you end up stratifying the socialist society and you end up either with a centralized system with a Politburo at the top or a decentralized commune style of Columbian guerrillas.
Guess what? It takes intelligence to accumulate wealth, make it productive and grow. If you just distribute (by confiscation) the wealth owned by capitalists to people who know nothing about the capital, you are going to waste a lot of resources and in the end, everybody will be hungry and willing to rob their neighbor or sell their 14-old daughter for a bag of rice. Check out Venezuela, or Cuba.
You really have not thought it through.
There is a reason why most rich people are intelligent and most poor people are simpletons. You still end up with more educated people accumulating more wealth In a democracy decisions are made upwards. The government is not dictating downwards how company decisions must be made. Its hard for our minds to grasp how true democracy works because we have only seen governments where decisions made at the top are enforced downwards. Perhaps there are still socialists who want to confiscate wealth but that is a very fringe type of socialist. We simply want to make sure no new wealth is confiscated. You are advocating for the destruction of a social structure that worked for hundreds of years and replacing it with your idea of a fair system? How are you going to reward entrepreneurs, doctors, engineers and punish lazy workers who screw up the costly production lines? Giving everyone their fair say and fair share doesn't mean talented people cannot be rewarded more for their work. Worker cooperatives already exist and some are very successful. Most cooperatives vote on a salary structure and many have rules where the person at the top can only make x times the person at the bottom. They all vote on x and they vote in the interest of making the company function because if they vote in a way that runs away the rare talent, then their own job will not be sustainable. Any system in place for penalizing lazy workers in a capitalist company could still be implemented in a cooperative. The difference is that they have democratically agreed to these systems. Again, people don't want to work while lazy people next to them benefit, so they wouldn't vote on measures to structure the company that way. Large cooperatives vote on board members but always have the ability to call a vote to replace them or overrule an unpopular decision. Cooperatives that make "bad" decisions will end up with less money to share while more successful cooperatives that make "good" decisions will be the ones that attract and reward talent, make more money, and end up with more wealth to share. Entrepreneurs who do not have people working under them would not be affected at all as they are the "workers" and already own the means of production. Are you going to force brilliant surgeons to work for minimum wage (decided by the hospital maintenance workers)? Are you going to kill or imprison all the intellectuals? If not, your system will fall apart as the intellectuals will expose the obvious inefficiencies and faults in it. No brilliant doctor or engineer would want voluntarily stay in your system. Why? because they will not be able to start their own businesses and run them the way they envision them. If someone knows of an obvious inefficiency or fault in a company, then they will bring it up at a stakeholder meeting, propose what they are recommending, and people would vote on the change because at the end of the day, they have vested interest in the success of the company they work for and own. Any company that offered highly skilled professionals minimum wage, would not have any highly skilled professionals and would not have a company. If one cooperative fails, it doesn't mean the entire system fails just like if I open a business and that business fails, the economy doesn't crash. The important thing about a bottom up democratic system is that the largest level of decision making is done at the local community level. It seems you are thinking about the entire economy running as one cooperative instead of thousands of small ones. I don't like the doctor example because healthcare is a controversial sector, but lets say its any other sector because your point still stands. If a brilliant engineer has his own ideas, he could propose them to other cooperatives, become a consultant, or start his own company with these core ideas. Workers woul flock to join his cooperative and invest their labor because of his great ideas. Who is going to invest in your made-up system if you eliminate the private ownership? What we mean by social ownership is that ownership of the means of production is never attached to one person. The key is to distinguish between personal property and private property. Each person has thier personal property. Their home and belongings but no ownership over the personal property of others. You cannot have a large factory or apartment building owned by a single person. For cooperative companies, the workers of the company all own the company together. Ownership and decision making is only made by the people affected by the actions of the company. No external shareholders. This means no one person should own another person nor should they own another person's personal property which is required to live (labor, home, etc) . Workers invest their labor by working Workers will be deciding what the input costs are? Are you nuts? Production costs, as well as the prices of products, should be driven by the free market. Any artificial tinkering with the economic forces only leads to more chaos down the road. Your cooperatives will have to synch prices with other companies etc. This eventually leads to central planning. And we all know how this ends. You need to have private ownership, otherwise, all smart people will pack and leave your little experiment. And you will end up with morons who will run your factories to the ground. I would not want to live in a society where I cannot own multiple properties, own shares in companies, and accumulate wealth. Are you going to eliminate personal collections or say 50+ sports cars, or expensive art pieces? In the capitalist system, anyone can own Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Amazon or Apple. In your system, you will only own a share of the company where you work. How would this make you rich or financially independent? You will always depend on the other schmucks that own your company. Do you even have a basic financial education? In your socialist system, financial mobility would not be possible. It would be more like a feudal system where workers will be chained to their workplaces. I don't even know how would this work. You are born, you go to school, you graduate, you are given a share in a company and a job that goes with it and work there for the rest of your life? Sounds like a utopia to me. No sane person would want to follow the rules of your socialist system. In the capitalist system, you have the freedom. You can invest your hard earned money or spend it on useless gadgets. You can change jobs, you can ask for more money, you can start companies, invent new products etc. |
|
|
|
Where in the map is Tyre? Didn't Alexander destroy it in 332 BC? When you see these people with over human strength is it a psychiatric disorder? When you see them doing the supernatural? When you see Doctors diagnose a person with cancer and minutes after a prayer cancer is gone and can't be seen anywhere in the persons body? When you see a car in flames, when you see it completely burnt and a guy (the driver) who is a Christian without a scratch, no burns and all pages of the Bible intact? What's your answer for this? Look it up on Youtube then tell me.
That is easy to test. Take a Bible and go sit in your car, ask your wife to pour 1 gallon of gasoline on you, set you on fire, and pray for you and the Bible not to burn. See what happens. I suggest you make a will before attempting it. If you really believe these reports are true, go and test it on your own skin. All people who believe in this nonsense should just set themselves on fire. You are slowing down our human progress. The faster your genes are eliminated from the gene pool the better for the rest of us. You're getting to sound more and more like Satan all the time. Matthew 4:5-7: 5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6“If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“ ‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ ”
7Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ”  When they can't disprove a point they make jokes, they can run away as much as they want from the truth however every knee will bow and confess Jesus is Lord. I bet you don't even know who/what "Lord" is. Define it, I dare you. You are just repeating this sentence like a parrot, without knowing the what, when and why. If your parents believed in Allah or Zeus, you would be repeating some other nonsense. Actually I was born a catholic, my whole family is, my whole family is totally opposed to my beliefs and my acts. I chose to do what was right instead of what was the tradition. I serve God, not because of fear of hell but because of his kindness and on how he has protected my parents from several near death situations. The Lord is my master, I'm his servant, he is my ruler, I'm his soldier. You state we repeat ourselves as parrots, however you don't realize the many times you repeat the same argument about being an atheist because you don't know who the right god is, instead of forgetting fanaticism to tradition for a second and looking for the answer. No god Has done what the God of the Bible has. He is the King of kings, that's why he is Lord. Just do your search man and you will realize no god has done what he has done. It takes more faith to believe on some statements from modern science. I'm not asking you to have faith but to look for facts. Even other religions reference him as you can read in the book of islam ""The most awful (meanest) name in Allah's sight is (that of) a man calling himself king of kings."" Right God? What does that even mean? It is like saying my delusion is the right one! Go easy on the "I'm his soldier" stuff before you know it, you will be killing abortion doctors or gays. I really don't care which God you believe in. It absolutely does not matter at this point, you are clearly delusional. BTW, you did not answer my earlier question. |
|
|
|
...
I have so much renewed confidence in socialism because I have yet to meet a person who understands socialism and is against it. Most people against it are against it because capitalists have tricked them into believing it is necessarily authoritarian, it eliminates personal property, eliminates personal freedom, the USSR revived, or is just welfare for everything.
...
You are for it because you don't understand it. If you lived under the socialist system you would understand it. Humans are all different, different skills, personalities, and ambitions. When you equalize the outcomes, you kill incentives to work harder than the guy next to you. This leads to poor productivity, and the economy eventually collapses on its own weight. Smart people leave and go elsewhere and you are left with idiots who cannot tie their own shoes never mind run a complex economic system. Be careful what you wish for. Where did you get the idea that socialists want to equalize outcomes? Definitely not in my platform or any of the other links I posted. Sounds like the same old straw man and further affirms my quoted point. I argue for democratic socialism, post platforms, and ideological explanations and capitalists STILL argue against the stalinist model. People who don't understand socialism also seem to believe in a one dimensional political compass which means they are unaware of about half of all political ideologies. You are even not sure about what you really want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism"Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production (including wealth) are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government"If you own the factory collectively with all the drunks that don't show up for work, but who control the factory as much as you, no matter how hard you work, how is this not the equality of outcome? Sooner or later you end up stratifying the socialist society and you end up either with a centralized system with a Politburo at the top or a decentralized commune style of Columbian guerrillas. Guess what? It takes intelligence to accumulate wealth, make it productive and grow. If you just distribute (by confiscation) the wealth owned by capitalists to people who know nothing about the capital, you are going to waste a lot of resources and in the end, everybody will be hungry and willing to rob their neighbor or sell their 14-old daughter for a bag of rice. Check out Venezuela, or Cuba. You really have not thought it through. There is a reason why most rich people are intelligent and most poor people are simpletons. You are advocating for the destruction of a social structure that worked for hundreds of years and replacing it with your idea of a fair system? How are you going to reward entrepreneurs, doctors, engineers and punish lazy workers who screw up the costly production lines? Are you going to force brilliant surgeons to work for minimum wage (decided by the hospital maintenance workers)? Are you going to kill or imprison all the intellectuals? If not, your system will fall apart as the intellectuals will expose the obvious inefficiencies and faults in it. No brilliant doctor or engineer would want voluntarily stay in your system. Why? because they will not be able to start their own businesses and run them the way they envision them. You will be left with mediocre managers, doctors, lawyers and engineers, and no entrepreneurs. Is this the society you want to have? Everyone as intelligent as your average cleaning lady? There is no way this will work. Who is going to invest in your made-up system if you eliminate the private ownership? "As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production." |
|
|
|
Where in the map is Tyre? Didn't Alexander destroy it in 332 BC? When you see these people with over human strength is it a psychiatric disorder? When you see them doing the supernatural? When you see Doctors diagnose a person with cancer and minutes after a prayer cancer is gone and can't be seen anywhere in the persons body? When you see a car in flames, when you see it completely burnt and a guy (the driver) who is a Christian without a scratch, no burns and all pages of the Bible intact? What's your answer for this? Look it up on Youtube then tell me.
That is easy to test. Take a Bible and go sit in your car, ask your wife to pour 1 gallon of gasoline on you, set you on fire, and pray for you and the Bible not to burn. See what happens. I suggest you make a will before attempting it. If you really believe these reports are true, go and test it on your own skin. All people who believe in this nonsense should just set themselves on fire. You are slowing down our human progress. The faster your genes are eliminated from the gene pool the better for the rest of us. You're getting to sound more and more like Satan all the time. Matthew 4:5-7: 5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6“If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“ ‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ ”
7Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ” When they can't disprove a point they make jokes, they can run away as much as they want from the truth however every knee will bow and confess Jesus is Lord. I bet you don't even know who/what "Lord" is. Define it, I dare you. You are just repeating this sentence like a parrot, without knowing the what, when and why. If your parents believed in Allah or Zeus, you would be repeating some other nonsense. |
|
|
|
...
I have so much renewed confidence in socialism because I have yet to meet a person who understands socialism and is against it. Most people against it are against it because capitalists have tricked them into believing it is necessarily authoritarian, it eliminates personal property, eliminates personal freedom, the USSR revived, or is just welfare for everything.
...
You are for it because you don't understand it. If you lived under the socialist system you would understand it. Humans are all different, different skills, personalities, and ambitions. When you equalize the outcomes, you kill incentives to work harder than the guy next to you. This leads to poor productivity, and the economy eventually collapses on its own weight. Smart people leave and go elsewhere and you are left with idiots who cannot tie their own shoes never mind run a complex economic system. Be careful what you wish for. |
|
|
|
Capitalism is the best, natural system to separate and reward people based on their skills.
Really? I don't see how people can say such thing though. USA is one of the worst country towards economic mobility ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility#cite_note-6). Countries like France or Norway which are much more "socialist" have a higher economic mobility. Isn't that a proof that capitalism IS NOT the best system to separate and reward pople based on their skills? You struggle with the definition of socialism. You confuse social programs with socialism. France and Norway are capitalist countries. USA is still a #1 country people want to IMMIGRATE to. When was last time you had caravans of migrants heading towards your precious Russia, Chechnya or Kazakstan? (Or whatever your native land is). Capitalism rewards risk takers and innovators. That is why the best products are developed in capitalist countries. Not in socialist countries like Cuba or North Korea or dictatorships in the Middle East, or Russia. Socialism kills innovation, it demotivates people, it kills any progress. It equalizes the outcomes. |
|
|
|
Suicide rates and depression are rising because of Capitalism. Workers are getting screwed over, the wealth they create is stolen.
I know a lot of you, especially americans are brainwashed.
-Climate change is a direct result of a profit driven society, environment doesn't matter only the dollar
-"hurr durr socialism/communism never worked millions died hurr durr" Capitalism has killed much more people directly with poverty, inability to afford healthcare, etc
-. Capitalism is nothing but slavery with a new name, owners of capital are the slave masters
-
If you think you create wealth as a worker, ask for more money or go work somewhere else where your "wealth creation skills" will be recognized. If not, you can start your own company and create wealth for yourself. Stop complaining about other people's wealth. Fix yours. Capitalism is the best, natural system to separate and reward people based on their skills.Early in my engineering career, I recognized that I needed to go solo, so I quit after 2 years at a multinational company and was immediately hired as an independent consultant by their competitor and paid four times as much. Then I started my own consulting company which I sold 30 years later. Don't be afraid to demand more money from the "evil capitalists" or better yet, become one. Invest early, save as much as you can, live within your means, retire early and enjoy your life. Whatever you do, don't complain. Nobody likes lazy people who complain for no apparent reason. |
|
|
|
Israel is still standing throughout the ages that should be a good proof about the veracity of the Bible,
Tyre is still standing, too, which should be a good disproof of the Bible, which repeatedly prophesied its destruction. people with demons you see out there should be also proof,
If you're seeing demons, you should consult a psychiatrist. They have pills for that. Where in the map is Tyre? Didn't Alexander destroy it in 332 BC? When you see these people with over human strength is it a psychiatric disorder? When you see them doing the supernatural? When you see Doctors diagnose a person with cancer and minutes after a prayer cancer is gone and can't be seen anywhere in the persons body? When you see a car in flames, when you see it completely burnt and a guy (the driver) who is a Christian without a scratch, no burns and all pages of the Bible intact? What's your answer for this? Look it up on Youtube then tell me. That is easy to test. Take a Bible and go sit in your car, ask your wife to pour 1 gallon of gasoline on you, set you on fire, and pray for you and the Bible not to burn. See what happens. I suggest you make a will before attempting it. If you really believe these reports are true, go and test it on your own skin. All people who believe in this nonsense should just set themselves on fire. You are slowing down our human progress. The faster your genes are eliminated from the gene pool the better for the rest of us. |
|
|
|
BADecker is like... "hmmm... yeah I guess I got no rebuttal for all those quoted bible contradictions....
Oh I know.... I'll just post 'You are using it out of context' a million times in blue... I win debate!"
It is typical with apologetics. The quotes are either "taken out of context", "mistranslated" or "should be used metaphorically or interpreted correctly" etc. Basically, they have no argument but still, refuse to admit that their holy scriptures are a bunch of horseshit written by horse handlers. There is nothing holy in these books (Bible, Koran, Talmud etc), just ignorant people reflecting on their predicament. These people did not know what planet they were on, what Sun was or what cells in their body were. They had no clue about the world around them. So naturally, everything was magic. |
|
|
|
The Bible has not changed over the millennia since it was written. so.... not a chance that nonsense written by goat herders 2000 years ago the bible is fake news, eh? <SMH> It doesn't lessen the strength and purity of the Bible at all. It is simply a touch that shows the real battle that is going on between righteousness and wickedness. ... shows that you are religiously (NOT) minded. (FTFY) yes ,I'm indeed religiously minded in the sense that I think all religion is a virus of the mind and thank goodness I'm not infected... Let's agree to disagree.
BTW, your 'proof' does not prove that God exists. You simply say that he exists. That is your 'proof'.
there is no proof that a magic sky fairy exists. its all faith ...nothing more. and in other news...the sky is blue ...water is wet... The Bible is not fake news. It is a faithful written record of things that happened. When scientifically examined from every angle, the Bible is proven true. Bible verses that talk about evil and wicked things are far better aesthetically than many of the things written in our court records, being promoted by politics, and being done all over the world today. You simply don't realize that you are infected by your own religion, even if it is a religion of non-religiosity. I would agree that there is no real common evidence for a sky fairy. Everything is faith, because nobody knows for a fact that anything even one second into the future is what will happen. All that happens is that God has ordered the universe in such a way that we can guess right about many of the things that happen. But we don't know they will for a fact happen the way we guess. And often they don't, exactly. The point is that we ALL live by faith, all the time. In other news, God made the water wet, the sky blue, and graciously gave us the ability to recognize this. For fuck's sake, read the fucking Bible. Bunch of scriblings by very ignorant men. They did not know where they lived and why. https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/
The Permanence of Earth“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4 “… the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10
Seeing God“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30 “No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18 Human Sacrifice“… Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God…” — Leviticus 18:21 [In Judges, though, the tale of Jephthah, who led the Israelites against the Ammonoites, is being told. Being fearful of defeat, this good religious man sought to guarantee victory by getting god firmly on his side. So he prayed to god] “… If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering” — Judges 11:30-31 [The terms were acceptable to god — remember, he is supposed to be omniscient and know the future — so he gave victory to Jephthah, and the first whatsoever that greeted him upon his glorious return was his daughter, as god surely knew would happen, if god is god. True to his vow, the general made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!] — Judges 11:29-34 The Power of God“… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26 “…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19 Personal Injury“…thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25 “…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” — Matthew 5:39 Circumcision“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” — Genesis 17:10 “…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2 Incest“Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22 “And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter…it is a wicked thing….” — Leviticus 20:17 [But what was god’s reaction to Abraham, who married his sister — his father’s daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12 “And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife…I bless her, and give thee a son also of her…” — Genesis 17:15-16 Trusting God“A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD…” — Proverbs 12:2 Now consider the case of Job. After commissioning Satan to ruin Job financially and to slaughter his shepherds and children to win a petty bet with Satan. God asked Satan: “Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.” — Job 2:3 The Holy Lifestyle“Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart…” — Ecclesiastes 9:7 “…they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not…” — 1 Corinthians 7:30 Punishing Crime“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20 “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5 Temptation“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” — James 1:13 “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…” — Genesis 22:1 Family Relationships“Honor thy father and thy mother…”– Exodus 20:12 “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ” — Luke 14:26 The resurrection of the Dead“…he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. ” — Job 7:9 “…the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth….” — John 5:28-29 The End of the World“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. ” — Matthew 16:28 “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. ” — Luke 21:32-33 “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” — Romans 13:11-12 “Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.” — James 5:8 “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” — 1 John 2:18 “But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.” — 1 Peter 4:7 |
|
|
|
Would you even understand if I printed it this way?... Outside-The-Universe? Only one Outside-The-Universe. And that's all we know about It/Him/God, or anything else that might be out there. ''Only one Outside-The-Universe.'' Only One universe, therefore only 1 planet? Or only 1 galaxy? Only 1 human? What does it mean to say only ''one'' outside the universe and how do you know there is only 1 god outside the universe? You don't make too much sense here. So, now you think there is one planet and one galaxy and one human outside the universe. Why? Well, how many outside-the-universe's do you think there are? As for God, it would take a God to create the universe. Since the only thing we know about outside the universe is that it is one - outside - there is one God. ''outside the universe is that it is one'' What does that mean, though? That's an illogical thing to say. One what, I have one bottle, but many things can fit inside it, just because it's one it doesn't mean inside it only one thing can exist just like ''outside the universe''. How do you know only one thing exists outside of our universe? That makes 0 sense. You are just making shit up, literally.They all have to since they don't know. That is their modus operandi, i.e. make the shit up as they go along. The more fantastic and scary the story is the more suckers they can fleece. “Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain |
|
|
|
....snip
I have got just question here bud, Do you find the big bang theory a reasonable proof enough to explain the existence of living things and it's huge diversification ? I meant from a sand fly, single-celled organisms to we humans. Edit: things we cannot yet explain with science Yet ? how long before answers can be provided by science ? Or Simply cannot be explained with Science ? People believe in the unknown (aka God) because they are ignorant of the world. They refuse to study and learn how the world works. If you stay ignorant, anything can become supernatural. From tree bark to the shape of bee comb. Stones and stars will have supernatural meaning to you. Fire and Sun were worshiped for a long time. Now, the "before the Big Bang" is worshiped. |
|
|
|
Go to the sea and observe boats that are far away and getting closer. You will probably need binoculars. ... let us know what you came up with...
Who is "us"?People who are allowed to go beyond the walls of your mental institution. You know, the sane ones. Or as you put it, brainwashed by the filthy Jews. |
|
|
|
The Dead Sea Scrolls have been verified to be authentic. They are as much as 2,400 years old. They contain the Book of Isaiah and other books from the Bible. These are the same as they are in the hand the Hebrew Bible of today, except for one change. One change where the whole Hebrew Bible has changed slightly over the hundreds of years, is that you will not find the letters of the Hebrew alphabet to be formed exactly as they were. So, the Hebrew originals are slightly different just like people can be identified because their hand writing is slightly different. Also, over the years, there have been some grammatical changes that have been noted. They have been noted so that everyone can see that there is no change to the originals other than to make easier reading, grammatically. It's like English, when you add or remove a comma from a writing here and there, or when you join two words in English to make smoother reading. It doesn't change the meaning. It simply makes it easier to read. But if you are talking translations... Translations are going to be different, because of the way people think in different languages. The words of one language often don't fit the words of another language exactly. So, there have to be changes, and there is often disagreement among scholars about which translations say it the best. But the original Hebrew Bible has not changed over the hundreds of years, copy to copy. Since the Hebrew people have held it together for all this time when they did not have their own nation, why would anyone think that they did not hold it together in the times when they DID have their own nation? These people are stinking stubborn. They are so stubborn that here they are back again, since 1948/49, with something like 1800 to 1900 hundred years of having no nation. So why would you think that they aren't stubborn enough to hold the Bible together accurately? And when you throw in the idea of God doing it, the whole thing becomes much stronger. I could go on and on. And I have all over this thread and others that talk about God and Israel, the Hebrew nation. And, you can get out there and investigate about Israel yourself. But you are talking against the Guy Who holds your life in His hand when you bad-mouth His people - rotten though they may be at times. And that is dangerous. Most important to this post is that the Bible has not changed except cosmetically over the years. Not really, but it does not matter to you I guess. I recommend you start believing in HexHronoExus before it is too late for you. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/22/us/bible-museum-fake-scrolls/index.htmlWhen you Internet search on fake news, you can find it all over the place. Certainly Muslims and others might attempt to fight Christianity by adding something similar to fake news to things like the Dead Sea Scrolls. But to subtly introduce the idea that the DSCs are false, is simply a subtle form of fake news. It doesn't lessen the strength and purity of the Bible at all. It is simply a touch that shows the real battle that is going on between righteousness and wickedness. The Bible has not changed over the millennia since it was written. You are in denial about DSS. How many versions of the Bible do you have? How many Christian denominations do have? What happened to all the books that were excluded in 325 AD? Unchanged my ass. |
|
|
|
When you add to it the fact of 25,000 hand-copied New Testaments from the old days
We didn't have robots back then, right? Each hand-copied version contained errors. You have no idea what parts of the bible are simply lies. The "earth" flooded was probably a local flood that got misquoted in a copy. They are as much as 2,400 years old. They contain the Book of Isaiah and other books from the Bible. These are the same as they are in the hand the Hebrew Bible of today, except for one change. One change where the whole Hebrew Bible has changed slightly over the hundreds of years, is that you will not find the letters of the Hebrew alphabet to be formed exactly as they were. So, the Hebrew originals are slightly different just like people can be identified because their hand writing is slightly different. Also, over the years, there have been some grammatical changes that have been noted. They have been noted so that everyone can see that there is no change to the originals other than to make easier reading, grammatically. It's like English, when you add or remove a comma from a writing here and there, or when you join two words in English to make smoother reading. It doesn't change the meaning. It simply makes it easier to read. But if you are talking translations... Translations are going to be different, because of the way people think in different languages. The words of one language often don't fit the words of another language exactly. So, there have to be changes, and there is often disagreement among scholars about which translations say it the best. But the original Hebrew Bible has not changed over the hundreds of years, copy to copy. Since the Hebrew people have held it together for all this time when they did not have their own nation, why would anyone think that they did not hold it together in the times when they DID have their own nation? These people are stinking stubborn. They are so stubborn that here they are back again, since 1948/49, with something like 1800 to 1900 hundred years of having no nation. So why would you think that they aren't stubborn enough to hold the Bible together accurately? And when you throw in the idea of God doing it, the whole thing becomes much stronger. I could go on and on. And I have all over this thread and others that talk about God and Israel, the Hebrew nation. And, you can get out there and investigate about Israel yourself. But you are talking against the Guy Who holds your life in His hand when you bad-mouth His people - rotten though they may be at times. And that is dangerous. Most important to this post is that the Bible has not changed except cosmetically over the years. Not really, but it does not matter to you I guess. I recommend you start believing in HexHronoExus before it is too late for you. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/22/us/bible-museum-fake-scrolls/index.html |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
