God and Communism

The problem with Capitalism is greed, it's that simple.

Love is an ideal itself wrapped in self gratification.

Only if sought with the realization that perfection can never be achieved, otherwise disappointment will always be the result.

Ideals and principals are personal concepts that not all of us share, we all view that world in different ways. People cooperate for only one reason, personal reward.

I'm not aware of a common definition of love. Love is the manifestation of our individual need for companionship.

.

 

What are "spiritual beliefs" to you?

It is human nature to be greedy,
Or
It is a weakness of human nature to be greedy?

I agree.

We understand our ideals from what we practice?
We then try to practice our ideals?

So technically,
It is worthless to hope in ideals?

How would,
Practicality be an ideal principle for cooperation,
Even if an ideal lacks practicality?

 

one thing i think marx got wrong is, i don't think he or anyone else can truly comprehend the stubbornness of beliefs and memories, and how slow they are to be changed

 

Greed is a product of human nature and I would hesitate to define any aspect of our nature as weakness or strength in and of itself. Human nature is what it is and has evolved within a natural environment that no longer exists for most of us. Greed is the mechanism that tells us to collect food while it's available so we can eat during the non-fruiting months of winter and between successful hunting expeditions, much the same way a squirrel collects nuts for the winter.

Our natural environment no longer exists and our social structure has evolved in a manner that is not fully compatible with our instincts. Over time and social evolution, the greed that was once necessary for our survival has become detrimental in our larger cultures. Our "human nature" is not our weakness; the weaknesses are: 1. our inability to evolve in a timely manner that would coincide with our changing environment. 2. our inability to create a social structure that would take advantage of our natural instincts.

You say you agree, but left out the second half of my statement, which, read in full: "Love is an ideal itself wrapped in self gratification." Love is an instinct that promotes a group mentality to ensure our survival as individuals and as a species.

It seems to me that you give us, humans as a species, more credit than we are due. Our primary instinct, from which all of our natures have evolved, is personal survival.

It is when those ideals are not compatible with human nature.

If an ideal is not practical, it's worthless. Humans will tend to cooperate more in a natural environment, of which one aspect is smaller, more personalized, groups where the individual can associate his/her own survival with that cooperation.

.

 

I agree that beliefs are slow to change,
But why would you want to change memories?

So,
Love is an ideal and an instinct?

Would you agree that,
All people naturally desire "love,"
Regardless of how each subjectively define it?
And this is the universal definition of love?
And this is common sense (self-evident to all)?

It is worthless to hope in ideals,
When those ideals are not compatible with greed?

Greed is practical and valuable?

Would the greed of one cooperative group,
Interfere with another cooperative group?

I would agree that,
Love is life.

 

why would you think that i did?

 

Sorry,
I didn't mean it that way.
I should have wrote,
"Why would anybody want to change their memories?"

I am also wondering if I was clear about laws I mentioned earlier.
According to Catholicism, there is a separation between Church and State.

Church laws pertain to eternal life (heaven), and must be ideal (heaven is ideal).
Civil laws pertain to civil consequences and settling disputes, and are therefore practical.

A conscientious catholic will consider the civil consequences and disputes of civil laws when voting.
They may vote, for example, for gay marriage laws, while remain obedient to the Catholic Church.
Likewise they may vote for a pro-choice candidate and remain obedient to the Catholic Church.

In fact bishops and priests aren't even supposed to tell catholics how to vote on anything.
And of course, the State has no authority to dictate what the Church teaches.

This all would also apply to the legalization of marijuana.

I apologize if I was, or still am, unclear.

 

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

just for thought**

 

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God
Guaranteed to convince any theist that god really does exist.

These are the same arguments I've heard for over 50 years. They're no more convincing now than they were when I was 12.

.

 

I thought so - but - -I'm kinda out of my league here so I took an easy way out with a copy and paste

Hope all is well Flash- -Been following some of your thoughts - insightful as usual
best regards,jjack

 

anyways, i was referring less to individual and more to collective memories

like iranians still remembering alexander

 

My knowledge is limited.

What is the difference between "individual" and "collective" memories?
What did the iranians remember about alexander?

 

individual - you remember things that happened to you, in your lifetime

collective - we remember things that happened to us, not necessarily in our lifetime

iranians still sing about alexander defeating persia, 2300+ years later, many other peoples have similarly long collective or cultural memories

seemingly some people [esp. americans] either do not, or are dismissive of this idea, as i've seen so many arguments against the validity of such memory, usually applied hypocritically

ex: why can't blacks forget about slavery? [offered by those who want to fly confederate flags in public places]

my complaint about marxism was in regards to the timeline it sets for change; it is an impossible thing to accomplish quickly, collective memory is tricky stuff . . .

 

Then how do we proceed about change?

 

perhaps some change is possible and some may not be

 

I'm interested in what changes might be possible.

 

do you ever answer any questions?

 

Generally speaking, slowly. As a rule, the young adapt to and accept change easier than the elderly. Our present mean average age is older than it has ever been, thus making change a bit more difficult.

If you are really interested in studying social change I would suggest a book or 2 on U.S. history of the 1960s and 70s that includes the anti-war movement, the Pentagon Papers and Nixon's presidency. Then shift to China in the present and look at the changing political, economic and social changes that are progressing as we watch. Cuba is going to be an interesting study to see how they change their society as Castro fades from the national spotlight.

Positive change can only occur with good leadership and a determined populace. Governments always develop grids of power that resist any change that interferes with their power.

.

 

Going by the Bible God is the vilest criminal imaginable. And the liars who claim to "love" him and condone his hideous crimes aren't much better.

 

Committing a crime against ideal things is the vilest crime imaginable,
Because ideal things are ideal (perfect), civil laws are not.
However crimes against civil laws may also be vile,
If the crime is not directed toward an ideal.

Protecting a victim from an aggressor,
May be both violent and loving,
If it is done out of love for the victim,
And not hate toward the aggressor.

However,

Preference must always be given to,
Perfect love (a love lacking all violence),
When possible in an imperfect world.

Perhaps by the ideal of "love," void of violence,
It is the best way to proceed toward,
Cooperative, peaceful, and ethical change?