Which religion killed more people?

Religion is probably the biggest divider in world history, but for those that believe in God it is central to our existence. Share your views.
Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Which religion killed more people?

Unread post by Sentenza » January 30th, 2014, 8:51 am

RuthlessCray wrote:
I don't see Socialism and Corporatism as being opposing forces. There's just different flavors of Socialism. There's socialism for the poor( Take from the rich/middle class and give to the poor), and government run institutions (public school system, socialized medicine etc), and then there's socialism for the rich (govt bailouts of corporations, politicians pandering to the military industrial complex, regulations on the financial sector that crush competition and build up the big corporations, central banking).
The second form of socialism you mentioned isnt socialism, because socialisms is pretty clearly defined and giving money to corporations isnt any part of it. Regulating the financial sector neither is one, because socialism wants to extinguish the financial sector.
It seems like you label pretty much anything socialism that involves regulations and/or statism. Now from an anarchist perspective this might seem true, but i would heavily disagree. There are many systems and ideologies that are statist and regulatory that are vigorously opposed to socialism. Fascism and Corporatism for example.
Socialism teaches that the world is dividedinto classes and that the lower classes need to break their chains. That is one of the most elemental teachings of socialism, not its statism. Its not defined by that. There is Anarchist socialism, democratic socialism, christian socialism etc. Socialism doesnt require statism. Its one possible part of it.
Now fascism teaches survival of the fittest, aristocracy, rule of the rich over the poor. This can coexist very well with capitalism and corporatism, unlike socialism which rules out these things.
Thats why the Chicago boys (Milton Friedman etc.) chose Fascist Chile back in the days for experimenting with their ideology. Because a fascist, corporatist environment is the most fertile soil for their ideas. No regulations for them, no human rights or workers rights that might mess with big capital etc.
RuthlessCray wrote: In the US, we have a mixture of both. Either way, it is a statist paradigm..Call it socialism, fascism, corporatism, Left Wing or Right wing, it is still Statist based.

BTW, Neo cons have never been libertarian. Neo cons have always been arch enemies. Their major influence was originally Leo Strauss, and most of them came from the Left, as communists and socialists. They were basically statists leftists that went to the Right during the Vietnam war and cold war. They were all for government control of everything except unlike the Left during that era, the Neo Cons were Pro war.
Didnt Ronald Reagan deregulate the financial sector in the US leading into skyrocketing debt? And didnt everyone else after him follow suit? Correct me if i am wrong.
I really doubt that Neocons were former socialists, because Neocons tend to be heavily christian, something that doesnt mix with being socialist.
From what i remember Strauss coined liberal thought (not as in leftist) and neocons were libertarians capitalists and believed in democracy.
The term Neocon was invented by a socialist to refer to non-socialists, social democrats who were leaning slightly to the right.
Maybe i got it confused, but most of these guys who were labeled neocons in the last 20 years were all for tax cuts, deregulation of the financial sector and so on. Maybe you could call them corporatists then.
RuthlessCray wrote: The US doesn't have a deregulated capitalist system. It has the opposite. (Central banking, hundreds of regulatory agencies overseeing the financial sector, complex tax codes, etc etc)
Like i said, from a perspective from outside the US, the US has little to no regulation, compared. Over here people dont see the state as a threat. They see it as the best way to organize a society, because it was the state that developed our countries it guaranteed safety compared to the times when there was no state here.
Those were times of constant strife and kill or be killed mentality.

RuthlessCray
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2124
Joined: September 29th, 2003, 6:57 am
What city do you live in now?: IE

Re: Which religion killed more people?

Unread post by RuthlessCray » January 30th, 2014, 11:22 am

Sentenza wrote:
I don't see Socialism and Corporatism as being opposing forces. There's just different flavors of Socialism. There's socialism for the poor( Take from the rich/middle class and give to the poor), and government run institutions (public school system, socialized medicine etc), and then there's socialism for the rich (govt bailouts of corporations, politicians pandering to the military industrial complex, regulations on the financial sector that crush competition and build up the big corporations, central banking).
The second form of socialism you mentioned isnt socialism, because socialisms is pretty clearly defined and giving money to corporations isnt any part of it. Regulating the financial sector neither is one, because socialism wants to extinguish the financial sector.
It seems like you label pretty much anything socialism that involves regulations and/or statism. Now from an anarchist perspective this might seem true, but i would heavily disagree. There are many systems and ideologies that are statist and regulatory that are vigorously opposed to socialism. Fascism and Corporatism for example.
Socialism teaches that the world is dividedinto classes and that the lower classes need to break their chains. That is one of the most elemental teachings of socialism, not its statism. Its not defined by that. There is Anarchist socialism, democratic socialism, christian socialism etc. Socialism doesnt require statism. Its one possible part of it.
Now fascism teaches survival of the fittest, aristocracy, rule of the rich over the poor. This can coexist very well with capitalism and corporatism, unlike socialism which rules out these things.
Thats why the Chicago boys (Milton Friedman etc.) chose Fascist Chile back in the days for experimenting with their ideology. Because a fascist, corporatist environment is the most fertile soil for their ideas. No regulations for them, no human rights or workers rights that might mess with big capital etc.[/quote]


Yea your right. I see state controlled institutions as "socialism." But if people would like to label it something else, that's fine. I see don't see fascism and state socialism as being far apart. Anything that requires State force or coercion belongs close together on the political spectrum in my book. I realize that there are socialist anarchists but like I said about Marxism, I can't see how it would work in reality, unless on a small scale.
Sentenza wrote:
RuthlessCray wrote: In the US, we have a mixture of both. Either way, it is a statist paradigm..Call it socialism, fascism, corporatism, Left Wing or Right wing, it is still Statist based.

BTW, Neo cons have never been libertarian. Neo cons have always been arch enemies. Their major influence was originally Leo Strauss, and most of them came from the Left, as communists and socialists. They were basically statists leftists that went to the Right during the Vietnam war and cold war. They were all for government control of everything except unlike the Left during that era, the Neo Cons were Pro war.
Didnt Ronald Reagan deregulate the financial sector in the US leading into skyrocketing debt? And didnt everyone else after him follow suit? Correct me if i am wrong.
I really doubt that Neocons were former socialists, because Neocons tend to be heavily christian, something that doesnt mix with being socialist.
From what i remember Strauss coined liberal thought (not as in leftist) and neocons were libertarians capitalists and believed in democracy.
The term Neocon was invented by a socialist to refer to non-socialists, social democrats who were leaning slightly to the right.
Maybe i got it confused, but most of these guys who were labeled neocons in the last 20 years were all for tax cuts, deregulation of the financial sector and so on. Maybe you could call them corporatists then.
The Ronald Reagan thing is American Left Wing mythology. Very little was deregulated during Reagan's era, although he did initially lower some taxes, those tax cuts were more than offset but all of his tax increases in the following years he was in office. The extent to which Reagan cut taxes and deregulated has been greatly exaggerated. For example, by 07 or 08, there was three times more spending by 115 Federal and State level regulatory agencies since 1980(adjusted for inflation). Doesn't sound like less regulation to me. The debt increased simply because they kept spending more.

As far as Neo Cons being Christians, that's partially true. The average Republican person who votes and cheers on guys like Bush, Mitt Romney or whatever Warmonger is in or running for office at the time tend to be Christian. But that isn't the case when we talk about the actual Neo Cons who feed the neo con agenda to the politicians in Washington. They're a specific group, a small group that manged to gain a lot of influence throughout the country. Many of them just happen to be Jewish. It's to the point now, that in some mainstream media circles, even using the term "neo con" is considered an anti semitic comment. Obviously most Jews are NOT neo cons, but I''d say most Neo Cons(The ones that infleunce the politicians) are Jewish. William Kristol, founder of the Weekly Standard magazine is probably the most well known and most hardcore Neo Con today. Him and his boys hate libertarians with a passion because the two ideologies are diametrically opposed.
The Reagan administration was one of the first to be influenced by the Neo Cons to an extent, but by the GW.Bush years, the administration was 100% run by Neo Cons. Everybody that surrounded Bush was a Neo Con basically. These guys may in general support tax reduction, but that's about it. They still favor big spending by the government, they're still pro war, they're still against civil liberties, and they support central banking 100%. Bush grew the government, increased regulations and bailout corporations.
Sentenza wrote:
RuthlessCray wrote: The US doesn't have a deregulated capitalist system. It has the opposite. (Central banking, hundreds of regulatory agencies overseeing the financial sector, complex tax codes, etc etc)
Like i said, from a perspective from outside the US, the US has little to no regulation, compared. Over here people dont see the state as a threat. They see it as the best way to organize a society, because it was the state that developed our countries it guaranteed safety compared to the times when there was no state here.
Those were times of constant strife and kill or be killed mentality.
The US has plenty of regulation. There's places around the world with growing economies that will soon pass the US in economic growth.

The US financial sector and banker sector is the most regulated part of the economy. Hundreds of agencies and thousands of regulators. Not only that, but the US the dominant State Empire in the world today.

I love it when people think that the corporations and big banks want a libertarian society so they can do whatever they want in the free market..But let's ask ourselves: Why the HELL do these very institution not donate to any real libertarian running for office and why do they fight tooth and nail to keep libertarian ideas out of the mainstream to be debated? And why do they always finance the campaigns of people like Mitt Romney and Obama instead??

The only reason the European states don't appear to be such a threat today is because they have been neutered for the time being. Just think of the millions of people who died in Europe in just WW1 and WW2 alone. And to think statism isn't a threat is preposterous.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6525
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: Which religion killed more people?

Unread post by Sentenza » January 30th, 2014, 1:54 pm

You gotta keep in mind that the development of the USA and Europe are diametrical opposite in that aspect.
In Europe the state largely brought development, civilization and order.
In northern germany we had clans fighting each other in blood feuds and honor killings up until the 16th century.
The state was absent in those regions and they solved all legal issues their way.
The Problem didnt vanish until urbanization set in and the state provided legal security through its institutions. Before that it was lawlessness.
In germany the government built schools and pretty much ended illiteracy. Public healthcare was introduced by the state when the public health situation was disastrous. All this is what happened pretty much all over the continent.
When there were no governments we had tribes engaging in endless wars.
There was no peaceful negotiating or coexistance based on cooperation. It was war and kill or be killed. Governmental institutions brought stability and development.
I know that in the US its a whole different cup of tea and i always think its intersting how people can have so different conceptions of the same thing, based on different historical experiences. As a full fledged libertarian, my guess is you would scare 99.9% of the people away in europe.

RuthlessCray
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2124
Joined: September 29th, 2003, 6:57 am
What city do you live in now?: IE

Re: Which religion killed more people?

Unread post by RuthlessCray » January 30th, 2014, 2:12 pm

As a libertarian, id scare 99perecent of Americans away too. Most Americans are statists...just some are more left wing flavor and some are more right wing flavor..we were all indoctrinated in state run schools and taught a government friendly version of history..What were taught is not all that much different than the version you just gave about Europe's history.

I was taught in school that, without the state, we would all basically be working in factories as children, probably missing fingers or whole arms. We would all be illiterate, we would have no health care, old people would die without medicare, without central banks we would have a great depression all the time, that the great Depression was caused by too much capitalism and lack of regulation, that WW2 ended the depression, and a whole bunch of other stuff that i later learned wasn't true when i got older and did my own research.

What i see today in America is a generational change. The older people, maybe 35 and up or 40 and up, still clinge to the old version of whatever were taught in school, while the younger generation is growing up with access to more information and is becoming more skeptical of what we're taught in school. ( that is if we're taught anything AT ALL in school).

TarHeelRED
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 873
Joined: July 3rd, 2004, 8:00 pm
Country: Israel
If in the United States: North Carolina
What city do you live in now?: New Jerusalem
Location: SPRING LAKE, NC
Contact:

Re: Which religion killed more people?

Unread post by TarHeelRED » February 2nd, 2014, 1:14 pm

Sentenza wrote:No offense, but its gonna be difficult to find a european that believes in all that stuff with the psalms and yehova etc.
Thats what amazes me about american forums. You'll find plenty of people using religion as a serious argument.
Senten, speak 4 yourself. Plus how many Europeans are subscribed 2 Streetgangs? U, the Al-Sheikh dude & 1 other person right? :arrow: (If u feel like wasting your time correcting me w/ the right # do so if u please. I promise you you'll have the last word regarding that.)

Again Senten, Alonso, most of the other users of this site, & myself are in America- Streetgangs.com headquarters (i.e an American forum). & in case u 4got WE ARE IN THE RELIGIOUS FORUM & the topic is 'Which RELIGION killed more people'!!!!! Context homes, context!!!!!!!

Lastly, freedom of speech. U don't have 2 peruse or respond 2 my posts u know? U use your free speech & free will 2 do so. :arrow:

Meanwhile in other news....................................................................................

punamusta
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1387
Joined: August 2nd, 2004, 5:55 pm
Country: Finland
If in the United States: Alabama
What city do you live in now?: see above
Location: Hellsinki, Finno-Ugria

Re: Which religion killed more people?

Unread post by punamusta » February 4th, 2014, 1:37 pm

RuthlessCray wrote:I think we are all equally entitled to rights to life, and I'm a supporter of self ownership, meaning we should all "own" our own bodies. I just don't believe in trying to force equal outcomes or socially engineering people into being equal.
If we're still talking about Marxists, then nobody isn't talking about equal outcomes (a really frustrating myth about communism), but fairness. It would be fair that the CEOs wouldn't get more than 10 times bigger payment than the workers of that company. That would also have positive effects on CEOs, and would certainly motivate them to pay better for their workers as they would know that they themselves can only get that 10 times more.

It's not about "socially engineering people into being equal", either. We are all equal. There's no need to engineer anything, but to make people understand the fact that we really are equal.
I don't care if some CEO owns more shit than me, I'm content with who I am. There's more to life than the fact that somebody somewhere has accumulated more materialistic wealth.
Sure there is. But if you look at the world we're living in, you must see how unequally the wealth has divided. And that's happened because too many people think like you: they simply don't care. I already told how just 85 people have more than 3,5 billion poor people (half of the world's population). That is a problem. The western world's standard of living is what is is, because we keep those billions of people living in poverty, having them making our products as cheap as it's possible so that our CEOs could get ever richer. And that is the basic problem behind capitalism. Corporations have to increase their profits annually to uphold the trust of the investors.

Now, if you'll ask from anyone that is there something that could grow forever and ever, everyone would tell you that it's not possible. Everything has boundaries. In 2013, we consumed 1,5 times the resources this planet can offer. So already we are consuming more than this planet can produce. And yet still the world goes on like nothing would've happened. The capitalists keep searching for cheaper energy and cheaper labour - the two cornerstones of a capitalist system, take one out and everything falls apart. And every year they have to produce more (meaning consume more natural resources) just to keep their companies alive. When will this suicidal evolution stop? Will is stop before it's too late? I don't think so. For that, we would have to build a whole new economical system. But that will not happen as long as some people can benefit so heavily from this current system.
Not only that, but wealth is something that is generated through time. There's not this one size pie of all wealth that needs to be evenly distributed. With less violence and respect for individual rights, that "pie" ironically gets larger, meaning more to go around for everybody.
No, the pie isn't one size pie, but still the profits need to be shared more fairly. Look at any western nation from the 80's till today, and you'll see that the rich have got ever richer, while the poor has got ever poorer. Why you still got so huge numbers of homeless people in USA? Why you have 3 times more homeless childrens in USA than 30 years ago if the grown profits of the CEOs would mean more for the people in need? The sense of fairness and moderation has died long ago, and been replaced with sheer greediness and egoism. Why did the Wall Street fall, for example, if not because of greediness?
Yes people evolved in fairly small tribes and close knit family units, where we looked out for each other, shared , hunted together in order to survive. But we did not evolve in tribes in 300 million or 3 billion or any other hard to imagine kind of number.
Of course not. But I'm trying to say here that how we humans are. We have a sense of fairness. We know what is fair and what is not. We still should and could take care of others.

This video for example has an interesting information of how the animals sense of fairness. We are no different to them.


That's where socialists go wrong...They confuse statist redistribution of wealth with the same thing as a family or a trible working together.. You can't centrally plan for and take care of the needs of such a massive amount of people.. You can take care of your own, your family, your close knit circle of people, because you know them, you know their needs and we evolved that way. This is a good thing...
The family and tribe are good examples of how we are as a people. We take care of our family, we toke care of our villages and tribes. Now, in 21st century, we suddenly should only think of ourselves and our needs and let few people get filthy rich from our work. Why is that? Of course we still should take care of the weaker ones and abandon the mindset that only our close ones are the ones that deserve a helping hand. We are all the same. Without co-operating, we wouldn't be here. That simple it is. Our responsibility as humans is to help the ones that need to be helped. If you do not agree with that, you are selfish egoist - no denying that. You wouldn't survive only by yourself or with your family alone. We need each others, so we should treat others fairly and equally.
The State on the other hand, would like to abolish the family structure and close tight knit communities based on the 'Let's help ourselves and our community' mentality and replace it with statist bureaucracy. Then, the government becomes your daddie, and also a false form of charity and welfare, then the family breaks down, chaos and destruction ensues.
The state should be something that makes sure that all have something and no one has too much. And that happens by taxation. Taxes are the ones that equalises the income differences and provides the welfare services to people.

punamusta
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1387
Joined: August 2nd, 2004, 5:55 pm
Country: Finland
If in the United States: Alabama
What city do you live in now?: see above
Location: Hellsinki, Finno-Ugria

Re: Which religion killed more people?

Unread post by punamusta » February 4th, 2014, 1:53 pm

RuthlessCray wrote: The more Capitalism there is, the less hours people have to work, and less hard they have to work.
Why is that? What is the average work day in USA in hours? How long vacations you get there per year? We work for 8 hours and get a month vacation per year with a full wage. And we are poorer and no way as capitalists nation as USA is. If we would be like you, it would be goodbye for the vacations, as our capitalists here have already demanded.
maybe some people actually want to work more hours, and they should have every right to do so.
Of course. With a payment. Not for free.
But the point is, they wouldn't be able to make these policies in a world without capitalism.


It's already done in all over the world. In the 60's, when Finland was pretty much a socialist nation, people could work for longer days if they wanted. Of course. It's not a problem. But they didn't HAVE TO work for 10 or 12 hours per day, like it was in the past.



It was only until society became so productive due to the market economy with it's capital, that anyone ever contemplated abolishing child labor. Thanks to capitalism, we have more free time and don't have to work hard all day just to eat.
Tell that to these kids who are definetly on a losing-side of capitalist world economy. Or look at the homeless people there in your country. They are the losers of this unequal system.



I can also link some videos of where kids make your Nike shoes and your clothes basically in full slavery. Just so that the CEOs in west could make more and more profits.

punamusta
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1387
Joined: August 2nd, 2004, 5:55 pm
Country: Finland
If in the United States: Alabama
What city do you live in now?: see above
Location: Hellsinki, Finno-Ugria

Re: Which religion killed more people?

Unread post by punamusta » February 4th, 2014, 2:01 pm

TarHeelRED wrote:
punamusta wrote:Keep in mind than humans are not selfish by nature, as capitalists and other selfish people like to claim. We wouldn't be here today if we would be selfish by our nature.
Humans ARE indeed selfish by nature, that is by our SIN NATURE! Selfishness is in every human being conceived from the sperm & the egg. Capitalist, socialist, repugnantcan, dumbocrat, independent, marxist, statist, saved, unsaved & etc. all have selfishness as well as covetousness, idolatry, theft, murder, envy, strife, lying, pride, & etc. in our sin nature or by nature. When Eve & Adam defied YHVH by eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil they died spiritually & thus all of the aforementioned things & even more are in our sin natures.


Psalm 14:1,3: "[[To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.]] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Oh, come on, man. Like Sentenza already told, this bible thing won't get you nowhere. I do know that Bible says about humans, but for me that don't hold any scientific prove in it. Look at for example that Frans de Waal's video of moral behavior on animals I posted above. You don't see selfishness there.

RuthlessCray
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2124
Joined: September 29th, 2003, 6:57 am
What city do you live in now?: IE

Re: Which religion killed more people?

Unread post by RuthlessCray » February 4th, 2014, 2:17 pm

punamusta wrote:
RuthlessCray wrote: The more Capitalism there is, the less hours people have to work, and less hard they have to work.
Why is that? What is the average work day in USA in hours? How long vacations you get there per year? We work for 8 hours and get a month vacation per year with a full wage. And we are poorer and no way as capitalists nation as USA is. If we would be like you, it would be goodbye for the vacations, as our capitalists here have already demanded.

I already explained what "CAPITAL" is, and explained why. You have to go back and read it again.

What relevance does US work hours have to the discussion of capital accumulation leading to more leisure time? The USA has been moving away from free markets for decades and decades. The wealth we have today is from the backs of past generations and because the rest of the world is being duped and still allows the US to borrow, spend and hold the world's reserve currency. Modern US is not a free market capitalist country, it is a fascistic, imperialist nation that uses military might to bully around other countries. It is true that it originally gained it's wealth from being a mostly free market or "capitalist" country, starting in the 19th century and was far more wealthy than anybody else. But those days are long gone, the US is now living off the rest of the world and relying on it's old imagine, until the rest of the world wakes up and realizes that the Emperor has no clothes.

You come from a tiny little country with a weak state. The US has the biggest, richest, most powerful state in the history of the world. All of your successes there are in spite of your state, not because of it..
punamusta wrote:
RuthlessCray wrote:maybe some people actually want to work more hours, and they should have every right to do so.
Of course. With a payment. Not for free.
Who said anything about working for free? Although, people should be allowed to work for free. Interns do it, and college kids PAY to work. SO why not? (Yes, I consider going to school, work.)
punamusta wrote:
RuthlessCray wrote:But the point is, they wouldn't be able to make these policies in a world without capitalism.


It's already done in all over the world. In the 60's, when Finland was pretty much a socialist nation, people could work for longer days if they wanted. Of course. It's not a problem. But they didn't HAVE TO work for 10 or 12 hours per day, like it was in the past.
Look, I don't know all the historic details of your country, but the 60s wasn't that long ago relative to the time mankind has been on the planet, and the 60s was a time long after capitalism had advanced the world technologically..



punamusta wrote:
RuthlessCray wrote:It was only until society became so productive due to the market economy with it's capital, that anyone ever contemplated abolishing child labor. Thanks to capitalism, we have more free time and don't have to work hard all day just to eat.
Tell that to these kids who are definetly on a losing-side of capitalist world economy. Or look at the homeless people there in your country. They are the losers of this unequal system.



I can also link some videos of where kids make your Nike shoes and your clothes basically in full slavery. Just so that the CEOs in west could make more and more profits.
If by capitalist world economy, you mean central banks run amok with fiat money, dollar hegemony, inflation, taxation, bank bailouts, trade restrictions, immigration restrictions,(and I can go on and on) then fine. The problem is you don't know how the economy actually works, and so you don't know cause and effect. Your watching sad videos and your judgement is clouded by emotion. If you really care about those that are suffering, you can't let emotions stop critical thinking, especially when trying to understand a social science like economics. Capitalism may seem to be harming people at first glance just like the world appears flat at first glance, but it isn't that simple.

RuthlessCray
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2124
Joined: September 29th, 2003, 6:57 am
What city do you live in now?: IE

Re: Which religion killed more people?

Unread post by RuthlessCray » February 4th, 2014, 2:38 pm

punamusta wrote:
RuthlessCray wrote:I think we are all equally entitled to rights to life, and I'm a supporter of self ownership, meaning we should all "own" our own bodies. I just don't believe in trying to force equal outcomes or socially engineering people into being equal.
If we're still talking about Marxists, then nobody isn't talking about equal outcomes (a really frustrating myth about communism), but fairness. It would be fair that the CEOs wouldn't get more than 10 times bigger payment than the workers of that company. That would also have positive effects on CEOs, and would certainly motivate them to pay better for their workers as they would know that they themselves can only get that 10 times more.

It's not about "socially engineering people into being equal", either. We are all equal. There's no need to engineer anything, but to make people understand the fact that we really are equal.
I don't care if some CEO owns more shit than me, I'm content with who I am. There's more to life than the fact that somebody somewhere has accumulated more materialistic wealth.
Sure there is. But if you look at the world we're living in, you must see how unequally the wealth has divided. And that's happened because too many people think like you: they simply don't care. I already told how just 85 people have more than 3,5 billion poor people (half of the world's population). That is a problem. The western world's standard of living is what is is, because we keep those billions of people living in poverty, having them making our products as cheap as it's possible so that our CEOs could get ever richer. And that is the basic problem behind capitalism. Corporations have to increase their profits annually to uphold the trust of the investors.

Now, if you'll ask from anyone that is there something that could grow forever and ever, everyone would tell you that it's not possible. Everything has boundaries. In 2013, we consumed 1,5 times the resources this planet can offer. So already we are consuming more than this planet can produce. And yet still the world goes on like nothing would've happened. The capitalists keep searching for cheaper energy and cheaper labour - the two cornerstones of a capitalist system, take one out and everything falls apart. And every year they have to produce more (meaning consume more natural resources) just to keep their companies alive. When will this suicidal evolution stop? Will is stop before it's too late? I don't think so. For that, we would have to build a whole new economical system. But that will not happen as long as some people can benefit so heavily from this current system.
Not only that, but wealth is something that is generated through time. There's not this one size pie of all wealth that needs to be evenly distributed. With less violence and respect for individual rights, that "pie" ironically gets larger, meaning more to go around for everybody.
No, the pie isn't one size pie, but still the profits need to be shared more fairly. Look at any western nation from the 80's till today, and you'll see that the rich have got ever richer, while the poor has got ever poorer. Why you still got so huge numbers of homeless people in USA? Why you have 3 times more homeless childrens in USA than 30 years ago if the grown profits of the CEOs would mean more for the people in need? The sense of fairness and moderation has died long ago, and been replaced with sheer greediness and egoism. Why did the Wall Street fall, for example, if not because of greediness?
Yes people evolved in fairly small tribes and close knit family units, where we looked out for each other, shared , hunted together in order to survive. But we did not evolve in tribes in 300 million or 3 billion or any other hard to imagine kind of number.
Of course not. But I'm trying to say here that how we humans are. We have a sense of fairness. We know what is fair and what is not. We still should and could take care of others.

This video for example has an interesting information of how the animals sense of fairness. We are no different to them.


That's where socialists go wrong...They confuse statist redistribution of wealth with the same thing as a family or a trible working together.. You can't centrally plan for and take care of the needs of such a massive amount of people.. You can take care of your own, your family, your close knit circle of people, because you know them, you know their needs and we evolved that way. This is a good thing...
The family and tribe are good examples of how we are as a people. We take care of our family, we toke care of our villages and tribes. Now, in 21st century, we suddenly should only think of ourselves and our needs and let few people get filthy rich from our work. Why is that? Of course we still should take care of the weaker ones and abandon the mindset that only our close ones are the ones that deserve a helping hand. We are all the same. Without co-operating, we wouldn't be here. That simple it is. Our responsibility as humans is to help the ones that need to be helped. If you do not agree with that, you are selfish egoist - no denying that. You wouldn't survive only by yourself or with your family alone. We need each others, so we should treat others fairly and equally.
The State on the other hand, would like to abolish the family structure and close tight knit communities based on the 'Let's help ourselves and our community' mentality and replace it with statist bureaucracy. Then, the government becomes your daddie, and also a false form of charity and welfare, then the family breaks down, chaos and destruction ensues.
The state should be something that makes sure that all have something and no one has too much. And that happens by taxation. Taxes are the ones that equalises the income differences and provides the welfare services to people.
I'm running short on time right now, but on the subject of rich CEO's and billionaires, I don't have an issue with rich people and billionaires per se, but I do think the increases in billionaires and mega rich CEOs in the last decades mostly has to do with the way government protects corporations in various different ways. Through, barriers to entry for newer businesses, through bail out promises, and most importantly of all, through central banks purposefully pumping money into the financial markets and making money cheap. This is why all these financial institutions are so levered up(and will eventually all fail again), the central banks make it so easy for financial institutions and wall streeters to speculate with cheap money, turning the whole financial market into a big casino. Of course, ALL of this wild behavior would be impossible in a real free market economy, where the government isn't allowed to prop anybody up or pump newly created money into the system artificially.

But what do the CEOs and corporations care if they all go bust again? The state promises to bail them out again or at least make credit even cheaper, inflate asset bubbles over and over, and do whatever it takes to make wall street happy again. What incentive the state really have in prosecuting fraud?

SpiritualKnight
Straw Weight
Straw Weight
Posts: 53
Joined: August 7th, 2018, 4:12 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Texas
What city do you live in now?: waco
Contact:

Re: Which religion killed more people?

Unread post by SpiritualKnight » September 11th, 2018, 8:39 pm

Russ Dizdar is a current preacher/former ohio police chaplain, who speaks about the massive satanic cult activity going on in ohio, and other states/places. (his facebook is: https://www.facebook.com/russ.dizdar) He lives in summit county, ohio - he helps people that are born into satanic cults get out, receive salvation, and provides protection to them, and also helps bring healing from a condition they often impose on members from birth, called multiple personality disorder (MPD - also known as DID, dissociative identity disorder), which they use to help keep members under control/hidden.. The satanic covens/cult groups do this through various methods of torture from birth, to bring about a 'split' in the personality through trauma - then hypnosis (and other essentially brainwashing techniques) are used on the 'split personalities', which are 'programmed' (so to speak) to be obedient and do the work. The process is known/documented as satanic ritual abuse (SRA - look it up..) - the man russ helps get salvation/healing for ALL the personalities, and can help provide means of escape/protection for those that want out of these satanic cults/secret society groups.These satanic cult groups I'm talking about are part of the anti-christ's satanic army that's spoken about in the prophetic bible verses of revelation (revelation 16:13-14, revelation 19:19), and are secretly operating inter-connected HEAVILY all over the country, and in other places world wide... They have people operating covertly at all levels of government, education, entertainment, law enforcement, and religions/religious groups (pretending to be one religion, while secretly they're a satanist), and they are VERY ORGANIZED, AND VERY ACTIVE. (*Note* also youtube search: 'cia and satanism' - ted gunderson, a former FBI member, has some really valuable/interesting information concerning this topic.. also look up 'MK-Ultra', and 'project bluebird'.... there are official government files/documents available online, concerning this stuff.) These are the last days (matthew 24), and the end of this world as we know it is not far off. These satanic cults engage in the act of casting spells/hexes on people, as well, but christians are able to combat this with the power of God them through prayer, and also deliverance for the satanic witch's can be attained. The preacher russ has powerful spiritual warfare teachings (Judges 9:57, Matthew 16:18-19, Mark 16:16-18, Luke 10:18-20, Acts 13:1-12, Acts 16:16-18, Ephesians 6:10-17) - witchcraft is real (Deuteronomy 18:10-11, Luke 10:18-20, Romans 16:10, Acts 19:18-29, 1 Timothy 4:1, Revelation 2:24), and these satanic covens/cult groups are heavily into it, doing human sacrifice and other things for demonic empowerment (2 Kings 21:6, Matthew 16:26-27, Luke 4:5-7, Acts 8:9-1, Revelation 18:23), and are involved in/tied to child kidnappings, much of the sex trafficking/sex slave stuff, serial killers (for example: charles manson, and richard ramirez -AKA the night stalker, who was from texas...), and also many people believe that some of the mass murderer's/shooters that have been arrested are potentially satanic cult coven members/victims of the satanic ritual abuse, themselves... This stuff is VERY REAL, and it is a VERY SERIOUS SITUATION - the man russ provides massive concrete evidence concerning this matter, and I have a qucik/powerful overview teaching that's posted at the top of my page, with a few links attached to it, that will help bring a strong understanding concerning the situation, while providing evidences as well. PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS MATTER, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT! (my face book is: https://www.facebook.com/kenny.jackson.5011)

Post Reply

Return to “Religious Thought”