Godlike Forsight

[Haggis_McMutton]

That is not necessarily true. If, in an afterlife, all said suffering and pain were somehow rewarded on and infinite level, and similarly all bad deeds were atoned, one could say that all is fair...theoretically.

What is the point of the kid suffering like this? I can see the argument being made for some kind of suffering that's supposed to teach you some lesson, but dying of hunger when you're 5 ?
Is god not able to keep that kid alive till he becomes a full person while also doing the whole afterlife shenanigans? Then, again, he is not omnipotent.

I don't remember defending anything, that's pure projection on your part. Your seething bitterness regarding this subject seems to affect your ability to enter into it in a reasonable way.

Yes you were. BBS accused god for letting the guy die, you defended god cause "mysterious ways".

Is this negligent?
What kind of dickhead lets someone die like that?
"Sorry, dude, but you know, I can't directly intervene cuz free will--except for all those times when I intervened about 2000 years ago."
Doesn't make any sense at all.

Why are you presupposing in your argument that your friend's death is a bad thing in the grand scheme of things? It may not make sense from your perspective but I don't think anyone would argue that you are all knowing.

And you completely avoid the issue of free will, man being a free moral agent, love only being love if it is voluntary, the existence of evil in all of us, etc.

Lets assume omniscience and free will somehow weren't mutually exclusive. Can god not prevent that kid from dying without violating anyone's free will? Then he is not omnipotent.


----

also:
@ tgd: I also work in mysterious, dickish ways.

@ Fitz. Here's the musical accompaniament to that great post of yours.

[2dimes]

2dimes, tvor, TGD, and a few others--I imagine--represent the majority of Christians and other theists, and they have the right mindset when it comes to religion. This is why I'm not too particularly concerned about religion itself and about most of its adherents. When Hawkins stated (in that youtube video Haggis(?) posted somewhere far far away) 'religion is evil because X, Y, and Z," I disagree because his interpretation of religion does not sync with the majority's--and more importantly the consequences of religious followers are on net positive.

I'm not certain I could be on sort of a sugar rush or something here too...

I think I've expressed it and Tzor and TGD will possibly back this up. I'm nearly Anti Christian Religion and have written on this forum my distaste specifically toward the Roman Catholic Church.

Hypocritically I do have some affection at least for their online personnas toward both those posters while understanding they are proud members of that religion. In fact I have respected some of the things they both have posted to defend it.

I have met good people that are some level of believer belonging to many religions. This rabbit hole is getting too deep here.

Religion to me is like minded persons getting together to share time and thoughts. Sometimes it's great, sometimes it can be very bad.

An athiest looking out for number one is just doing what is arguably somewhat natural. Self preservation.I find it more offensive when it is a person that claims to follow Christ that does a bad thing. I'm sure I do that too though.

Conversly there is a certain beauty in a person that questions or can't believe there is a God, choosing the right thing just because they know it's the right thing. It's more to their credit than doing it because, "I better so I don't get smote."

[kentington]

Self-sacrificing a society's/group's wealth and transferring it to another group some place far away won't improve that group in the long-run. Note sabotage's point about foreign aid and/or charity organizations in Cambodia. Well-intended attempts to help others also have unintended consequences, e.g. it subsidizes the decrepit institutions and governments in those areas, so that they can continue oppressing their own people, implementing bad policies, etc. without having as much of a need to change for the better.

I agree one hundred percent. The issue remains there is more that I could do. If I watched my money a little better there are more people I could help. I don't believe I can save everyone in poverty in third-world countries and total self-sacrifice leads to a one time payment. I have always thought that if I won the lottery I would try to find a way to make a people, that are in poverty and starving, self sufficient. So, instead of dumping money on them or on a company that doesn't actually follow through on their promises we would have a set of people making their community better with a decent set of livestock, better agricultural technology, and education. All of these can actually be done without some group acting as an embassy for our donations to the people.

Considering those consequences, it makes sense to say, "I'm not sure; therefore, I'll put my money to where I best expect to be profitable for others." This can be done through voluntary exchanges on the market, which increase wealth---e.g. grocery shopping or even donating to charities (depending on where they contribute and how well their services can be monitored).

What do you mean by voluntary exchanges on the market?

[BigBallinStalin]

We have spent thousands of years and countless people-hours trying to figure out how to make some of us better off than others. I held a talk yesterday at Dal trying to get people to share their collective knowledge, and putting in a few hours to try to focus on things that could allow people to be independent from our economic system.

Bell and Eastlink had joined together to sponsor a talk on data privacy, so I guess all the potentially attendees were busy seeing how two supposed competing service providers can convince us that we each need our own private network and couldn't attend.

I did manage to get one person along, and he seems like a good guy but we didn't get around to saving the world.

What I can say, based on the research than I have been doing, is:

1. we are quite capable of feeding the world, and providing people with the knowledge and tools to feed themselves. Based on modern techniques a family could feed themselves on little land and little time.

2. We are quite capable of living at our accustomed standard with far less energy and using local resources. I would refer to the 9800 years of our civilization prior to the industrial revolution, but even our modern needs can be met using about 8% of our current energy. Today a energy professor responded to me saying, not that it can't be done, but what of all the existing houses? Well if I am in the property market and am going to spend a few hundred thousand buying a Canadian house, then I might as well engage some Canadian labour, spend the same money and be self reliant for the rest of my life rather than put the money into the power hungry houses that are owned by the bank. IE, I wouldn't buy a record player just to keep them in existence when I could buy an ipod for the same, just to keep the banks happy.

3. We can and will soon be producing on a human scale, 3D printing will make any local resources manufactuarable based on world knowledge, the question is how much of the price of the end product is going to be sucked up by patents. Are we going to have machines and resources with user friendly interfaces and let a company who paid a designer 60k a year to inscript biomimickry, ie natural processes, into a data software, earn billions of the end user like we do with software?

The knowledge to end the world's problems exist, but so do the age old impediments towards its implementation, money, we all want that fucking money.

Jesus's only aggressive act according to the Bible was overturning the moneychangers tables. Yet we let the money changers direct every aspect of our lives to this day.

10 hours a week, probably less time than we each spend on conquerclub, working towards meeting the needs of everybody and changing the world forever.

Ten hours creating a blueprint for someone to build their future off of. I went back to university to learn this and yet every class just focuses on how this is not possible, no question I have brought up has ever been answered to the negative, but it keeps getting directed to the overriding system. Instead of focusing on how we can eliminate a need, we just focus on how we can service it. The thermal coupling concept, which requires no future inputs, ie its fucking free, is being suggested as an ets system which is the same damn thing but allows someone to make 1600 a year off of each of us.

Why the f*ck are we focusing all of our efforts on things that we will have to pay for forever, instead of focusing our efforts on things which eliminate need forever?


I ask you group of groggy minded assmunchers to join a like minded assmuncher and put in ten hours towards empowering the common man. The concept is of guerilla unity. Let's build back our communities with each other, not some fucking invisible hand snorting coke off victoria's secret breasts in the Caribbean.

A. Implementing the Christian "No Usury" Laws contributed to the collapse of Rome---or so I've heard in this interesting book (can't remember, but this link is interesting.

If #1 is true, then prohibiting usury has dire consequences which are harmful for almost every one. Where's the brotherly love in that? (And Jesus wasn't an economist).

Your 1 and 2.
Sure, but through markets and voluntary exchange.

[_sabotage_]

1. Consider the long term consequences. Isn't that why we have a concept of heaven, that the consequences are really long term?

2. Act appropriately, do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

3. Voluntary exchanges, back to point two.

If you reread Jesus's teachings, please do it with a more open mind, I suggest doing coke and then reading the words in red (some Bible's highlight his words in red, this helps in ignoring a lot of less essential stuff, and as a kid I spent a lot of times in hotel's, and the Bible was often the only thing to read during a comedown).

As for the market not being thrown out with the bath water, I agree. We should build up the common man but promote competition through different nations. Each environment, culture and group of individuals have their own set of competitive advantages, but these advantages should not be kept secret or limited to a certain group, they should be kept open to promote further development and competition between communities, but the benefit derived from the competition should be the benefit of the community rather than select groups within it.

Almost all of the problems we have faced historically have been because of inequality. If we promote this, we are promoting the problems. If we wish for a true just society and world, we must strive to improve the lot of the worst among us, not the height of the greatest.

[Army of GOD]

1. Humans were made in God's image
2. Humans can be evil.
∴ God can be evil.

-or-

1. Evil is the lack of God's presence
2. Humans were made in God's image
∴ Evil is the lack of humanity's presence
∴ Hell shouldn't exist because humans aren't inherently evil

[Lootifer]

I the bible consisted of only the words "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" then I would probably believe in God (or at least be more apathetic in my agnostism).

[_sabotage_]

Dude, I can link for link you if you like.

The collapse of Rome was because of usury. I was in Cambodia because the World Bank is insisting that Cambodia keep up with copyright laws and my mother was there to write legislation for the purpose. Cambodia is required to pay her for the privilege as part of the loans they received from the World Bank. Why is the World Bank so damn interested in Copyright laws?

As an economist, you should be familiar with the broken window concept and with the basic idea that the economy requires continued consumption. My model limits consumption by eliminating most need for consumption. The two systems cannot go hand in hand.

[_sabotage_]

I the bible consisted of only the words "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" then I would probably believe in God (or at least be more apathetic in my agnostism).

When Jesus was asked which law governed all the others, he replied do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

The fact is, we get a religious twist on everything. I really hate religion for desecrating the concept of god for their own selfish ends. Modern religion is no different than what Jesus called the religion that he saw at his time: hypocrites.

[AAFitz]

2dimes, tvor, TGD, and a few others--I imagine--represent the majority of Christians and other theists, and they have the right mindset when it comes to religion. This is why I'm not too particularly concerned about religion itself and about most of its adherents. When Hawkins stated (in that youtube video Haggis(?) posted somewhere far far away) 'religion is evil because X, Y, and Z," I disagree because his interpretation of religion does not sync with the majority's--and more importantly the consequences of religious followers are on net positive.

The hardest part Christians and other religions face. The evil members of the religion stand out fairly easily. The truth is that I am sure these people would be problems for society even if religion didn't exist. There are a lot of sick people out there who will use any excuse to justify their actions. Like AAFitz said if Christ showed up at our doorstep today a lot of Christians would crucify Him again, and that wouldn't surprise me. If He asked me what I was doing to help the children my answer would just be....crap. But that just goes to show that putting your faith in Christ doesn't make you a good person and it doesn't mean you actually believe what He has taught. A lot of people are just using it as a security blanket and I think it shows.

Self-sacrificing a society's/group's wealth and transferring it to another group some place far away won't improve that group in the long-run. Note sabotage's point about foreign aid and/or charity organizations in Cambodia. Well-intended attempts to help others also have unintended consequences, e.g. it subsidizes the decrepit institutions and governments in those areas, so that they can continue oppressing their own people, implementing bad policies, etc. without having as much of a need to change for the better.

Considering those consequences, it makes sense to say, "I'm not sure; therefore, I'll put my money to where I best expect to be profitable for others." This can be done through voluntary exchanges on the market, which increase wealth---e.g. grocery shopping or even donating to charities (depending on where they contribute and how well their services can be monitored).

If I could rewrite Jesus' teachings, it would include:

1. Consider the long-term consequences.
2. Act appropriately--as best you can.
3. Voluntary exchanges FTW.

(Another way of self-sacrifice which would be acceptable is devoting one's life to understanding how wealth is created, how bad institutions undermine prosperity, etc.).


So, although AAFitz mentions some serious problems, it still doesn't justify total self-sacrifice for others.

Except AAFitz isnt really suggesting true self sacrifice. He is suggesting that the sacrifices needed to save children, are not actual sacrifices, and certainly would not require total sacrifice.

[AAFitz]

That is not necessarily true. If, in an afterlife, all said suffering and pain were somehow rewarded on and infinite level, and similarly all bad deeds were atoned, one could say that all is fair...theoretically.

What is the point of the kid suffering like this? I can see the argument being made for some kind of suffering that's supposed to teach you some lesson, but dying of hunger when you're 5 ?
Is god not able to keep that kid alive till he becomes a full person while also doing the whole afterlife shenanigans? Then, again, he is not omnipotent.[/quote]

I dont know that the point is, and personally, I do no think there is one. I was merely pointing out, that there may be a point, and that that kid, in a supposed afterlife, would be grateful for it. As I hope Ive made it quite clear though, I think it would be better to avoid the suffering as much as possible in the first place. And omnipotent simply means a God can do anything, It doesnt mean he will.

[crispybits]

This whole conversation just reminds me of yet another reason I cannot even consider believing that christianity as anything but a delusion

A: God works in mysterious ways - we cannot even begin to comprehend his intentions, motivations or actions as we are so ignorant to the bigger picture!

B: Here, take this big-ass book. It's called the Bible and it will teach you all about God and his intentions, motivations and actions!

[BigBallinStalin]

Self-sacrificing a society's/group's wealth and transferring it to another group some place far away won't improve that group in the long-run. Note sabotage's point about foreign aid and/or charity organizations in Cambodia. Well-intended attempts to help others also have unintended consequences, e.g. it subsidizes the decrepit institutions and governments in those areas, so that they can continue oppressing their own people, implementing bad policies, etc. without having as much of a need to change for the better.

I agree one hundred percent. The issue remains there is more that I could do. If I watched my money a little better there are more people I could help. I don't believe I can save everyone in poverty in third-world countries and total self-sacrifice leads to a one time payment. I have always thought that if I won the lottery I would try to find a way to make a people, that are in poverty and starving, self sufficient. So, instead of dumping money on them or on a company that doesn't actually follow through on their promises we would have a set of people making their community better with a decent set of livestock, better agricultural technology, and education. All of these can actually be done without some group acting as an embassy for our donations to the people.

We face constraints imposed "by nature," as in there's only so much you can do--and do well.

How many resources should you dedicate to maximizing your income?
How much should be allotted to.. who exactly and through what means?

And whenever you do something, you forego the value of doing something else (opportunity cost).
As you spent countless hours studying books on investment, budget managing, whatever, you have foregone other opportunities (opportunity cost).

So, there's uncertainty, and searching for information requires time.

As for your agricultural community plan, hey that may be best. Sounds good to me.

Considering those consequences, it makes sense to say, "I'm not sure; therefore, I'll put my money to where I best expect to be profitable for others." This can be done through voluntary exchanges on the market, which increase wealth---e.g. grocery shopping or even donating to charities (depending on where they contribute and how well their services can be monitored).

What do you mean by voluntary exchanges on the market?

Well, it's about time you asked!

Definition
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p4037377

Examples
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p4039205


Basically, in order for an exchange to occur, each party must value the good of the other party more so than his own good. For example, I have a suit of armor that is the perfect size for a sugar cube such as yourself. You have a Jack Nicholson dinosaur suit--autographed by the man himself, Jack Fuckin Nicholson. I value the dinosaur suit more than my suit of armor, and you value the suit of armor more than your dinosaur suit. So we trade--and on voluntary terms.

Ex ante (from the beginning), we have now increased the value of our current holdings. Since it's a mutually beneficial exchange (i.e. a positive sum game), then wealth was increased for both parties.

(if the exchange is involuntary, I cannot say that wealth was created. It would be a zero-sum game, where one party benefits at the expense of another).

[AAFitz]

Self-sacrificing a society's/group's wealth and transferring it to another group some place far away won't improve that group in the long-run.

Letting that group die will not improve that group in the long run either. And you are suggesting that there is real sacrifice involved, as if not having a "fabulous window dressing" is a sacrifice compared to the immediate need of a starving child, but in reality, its not a sacrifice at all. Its not even really a decision.

If there was a dying child in your house and you were putting up curtains, while he died, you would most certainly be guilty of murder by negligence. You only dismiss it, because he isn't in your house, but a few thousand miles away.

You have bought into the pure capitalism will solve all woes eventually, but the theory is flawed and obviously so, especially when some of those people starving, have companies from other nations, mining wealth right below their feet, and taking away the profits to buy window treatments, instead of providing the food that those people deserve, by any realistic standard of the word deserve.

I dont blame you for ignoring it either. For someone like you, you'd be forced to re-evaluate everything you pretend to believe, and it would shatter the arrogance that you are doing everything you can, and should be doing, just as it would for the great majority of us, myself obviously included.

Most importantly, Im insulted that you would even suggest, that I am so short sighted, that I think the answer would be to just ship stuff off for eternity, and that that would solve all the problems, but instead imply an obvious change to the very fabric of our reality in which more equitable systems are in place, to allow all to help provide for themselves. In any case, suggesting that you need to let lots of children die to help a group out is about as close to being sociopathic as you can be.

[BigBallinStalin]

1. Consider the long term consequences. Isn't that why we have a concept of heaven, that the consequences are really long term?

That's just some abstract idea which motivates people to do different actions in different ways. Doesn't say much about what those long-term consequences will be. However, prohibiting usury does have known immediate and long-term consequences.

2. Act appropriately, do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

3. Voluntary exchanges, back to point two.

If you reread Jesus's teachings, please do it with a more open mind, I suggest doing coke and then reading the words in red (some Bible's highlight his words in red, this helps in ignoring a lot of less essential stuff, and as a kid I spent a lot of times in hotel's, and the Bible was often the only thing to read during a comedown).

As for the market not being thrown out with the bath water, I agree. We should build up the common man but promote competition through different nations. Each environment, culture and group of individuals have their own set of competitive advantages, but these advantages should not be kept secret or limited to a certain group, they should be kept open to promote further development and competition between communities, but the benefit derived from the competition should be the benefit of the community rather than select groups within it.

Almost all of the problems we have faced historically have been because of inequality. If we promote this, we are promoting the problems. If we wish for a true just society and world, we must strive to improve the lot of the worst among us, not the height of the greatest.

Yikes, isn't that Rawlsian justice? (Improve those who are the worst among us?) It's a noble intention--at the expense of everyone else.

Historically, all have been living pretty much like serfs. Compared to today's standards, even the poorest of the poor, we're doing better. It's not because we all seek to improve the worst of the worst--some can do that, voluntarily that's fine. The heavy lifter is increased labor productivity (division of labor and innovation in technology). Much of this is enabled through profit and loss incentives. The big argument against this is that governments make this possible--which to cut this short, I don't find to be true at all, considering the legacy of all governments and their history of fucking things up. (entering a tangent zone; will respond in another thread if you want to continue this line of thought).

[BigBallinStalin]

Self-sacrificing a society's/group's wealth and transferring it to another group some place far away won't improve that group in the long-run.

Letting that group die will not improve that group in the long run either. And you are suggesting that there is real sacrifice involved, as if not having a "fabulous window dressing" is a sacrifice compared to the immediate need of a starving child, but in reality, its not a sacrifice at all. Its not even really a decision.

If there was a dying child in your house and you were putting up curtains, while he died, you would most certainly be guilty of murder by negligence. You only dismiss it, because he isn't in your house, but a few thousand miles away.

You have bought into the pure capitalism will solve all woes eventually, but the theory is flawed and obviously so, especially when some of those people starving, have companies from other nations, mining wealth right below their feet, and taking away the profits to buy window treatments, instead of providing the food that those people deserve, by any realistic standard of the word deserve.

I dont blame you for ignoring it either. For someone like you, you'd be forced to re-evaluate everything you pretend to believe, and it would shatter the arrogance that you are doing everything you can, and should be doing, just as it would for the great majority of us, myself obviously included.

Most importantly, Im insulted that you would even suggest, that I am so short sighted, that I think the answer would be to just ship stuff off for eternity, and that that would solve all the problems, but instead imply an obvious change to the very fabric of our reality in which more equitable systems are in place, to allow all to help provide for themselves. In any case, suggesting that you need to let lots of children die to help a group out is about as close to being sociopathic as you can be.

I disagree.

Lemme ask you something, have things been getting better or worst for people (divided into all income brackets) in the world?

[AAFitz]

Self-sacrificing a society's/group's wealth and transferring it to another group some place far away won't improve that group in the long-run. Note sabotage's point about foreign aid and/or charity organizations in Cambodia. Well-intended attempts to help others also have unintended consequences, e.g. it subsidizes the decrepit institutions and governments in those areas, so that they can continue oppressing their own people, implementing bad policies, etc. without having as much of a need to change for the better.

I agree one hundred percent. The issue remains there is more that I could do. If I watched my money a little better there are more people I could help. I don't believe I can save everyone in poverty in third-world countries and total self-sacrifice leads to a one time payment. I have always thought that if I won the lottery I would try to find a way to make a people, that are in poverty and starving, self sufficient. So, instead of dumping money on them or on a company that doesn't actually follow through on their promises we would have a set of people making their community better with a decent set of livestock, better agricultural technology, and education. All of these can actually be done without some group acting as an embassy for our donations to the people.

We face constraints imposed "by nature," as in there's only so much you can do--and do well.

How many resources should you dedicate to maximizing your income?
How much should be allotted to.. who exactly and through what means?

And whenever you do something, you forego the value of doing something else (opportunity cost).
As you spent countless hours studying books on investment, budget managing, whatever, you have foregone other opportunities (opportunity cost).

So, there's uncertainty, and searching for information requires time.

As for your agricultural community plan, hey that may be best. Sounds good to me.

Considering those consequences, it makes sense to say, "I'm not sure; therefore, I'll put my money to where I best expect to be profitable for others." This can be done through voluntary exchanges on the market, which increase wealth---e.g. grocery shopping or even donating to charities (depending on where they contribute and how well their services can be monitored).

What do you mean by voluntary exchanges on the market?

Well, it's about time you asked!

Definition
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p4037377

Examples
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p4039205


Basically, in order for an exchange to occur, each party must value the good of the other party more so than his own good. For example, I have a suit of armor that is the perfect size for a sugar cube such as yourself. You have a Jack Nicholson dinosaur suit--autographed by the man himself, Jack Fuckin Nicholson. I value the dinosaur suit more than my suit of armor, and you value the suit of armor more than your dinosaur suit. So we trade--and on voluntary terms.

Ex ante (from the beginning), we have now increased the value of our current holdings. Since it's a mutually beneficial exchange (i.e. a positive sum game), then wealth was increased for both parties.

(if the exchange is involuntary, I cannot say that wealth was created. It would be a zero-sum game, where one party benefits at the expense of another).

If another child lives, and grows to contribute, wealth most certainly was created, and if you were a Christian, the most important kind of wealth they continually profess: Life.

[AAFitz]

Self-sacrificing a society's/group's wealth and transferring it to another group some place far away won't improve that group in the long-run.

Letting that group die will not improve that group in the long run either. And you are suggesting that there is real sacrifice involved, as if not having a "fabulous window dressing" is a sacrifice compared to the immediate need of a starving child, but in reality, its not a sacrifice at all. Its not even really a decision.

If there was a dying child in your house and you were putting up curtains, while he died, you would most certainly be guilty of murder by negligence. You only dismiss it, because he isn't in your house, but a few thousand miles away.

You have bought into the pure capitalism will solve all woes eventually, but the theory is flawed and obviously so, especially when some of those people starving, have companies from other nations, mining wealth right below their feet, and taking away the profits to buy window treatments, instead of providing the food that those people deserve, by any realistic standard of the word deserve.

I dont blame you for ignoring it either. For someone like you, you'd be forced to re-evaluate everything you pretend to believe, and it would shatter the arrogance that you are doing everything you can, and should be doing, just as it would for the great majority of us, myself obviously included.

Most importantly, Im insulted that you would even suggest, that I am so short sighted, that I think the answer would be to just ship stuff off for eternity, and that that would solve all the problems, but instead imply an obvious change to the very fabric of our reality in which more equitable systems are in place, to allow all to help provide for themselves. In any case, suggesting that you need to let lots of children die to help a group out is about as close to being sociopathic as you can be.

I disagree.

Lemme ask you something, have things been getting better or worst for people (divided into all income brackets) in the world?

You disagree, because you think that question is relevant. My point is that as a Christian, its irrelevant if one bracket is getting better, but only relevant that they have the means to help one of Gods Children.

I am not so much arguing what is the best way to solve the worlds hunger issues, that is a separate discussion, and not one that God or Christ would be interested in, any more than a Parent of starving children would be consoled that some other town happened to be doing well.

[BigBallinStalin]

Basically, in order for an exchange to occur, each party must value the good of the other party more so than his own good. For example, I have a suit of armor that is the perfect size for a sugar cube such as yourself. You have a Jack Nicholson dinosaur suit--autographed by the man himself, Jack Fuckin Nicholson. I value the dinosaur suit more than my suit of armor, and you value the suit of armor more than your dinosaur suit. So we trade--and on voluntary terms.

Ex ante (from the beginning), we have now increased the value of our current holdings. Since it's a mutually beneficial exchange (i.e. a positive sum game), then wealth was increased for both parties.

(if the exchange is involuntary, I cannot say that wealth was created. It would be a zero-sum game, where one party benefits at the expense of another).

If another child lives, and grows to contribute, wealth most certainly was created, and if you were a Christian, the most important kind of wealth they continually profess: Life.

But I'm not involved in that exchange--unless you wish to explain how I impregnated all the women in the world, then be my guest!
And neither is every Christian involved in all of those exchanges, so the implications of mutually beneficial exchange (as previously explained by me) do not apply to your scenario.

[BigBallinStalin]

Self-sacrificing a society's/group's wealth and transferring it to another group some place far away won't improve that group in the long-run.

Letting that group die will not improve that group in the long run either. And you are suggesting that there is real sacrifice involved, as if not having a "fabulous window dressing" is a sacrifice compared to the immediate need of a starving child, but in reality, its not a sacrifice at all. Its not even really a decision.

If there was a dying child in your house and you were putting up curtains, while he died, you would most certainly be guilty of murder by negligence. You only dismiss it, because he isn't in your house, but a few thousand miles away.

You have bought into the pure capitalism will solve all woes eventually, but the theory is flawed and obviously so, especially when some of those people starving, have companies from other nations, mining wealth right below their feet, and taking away the profits to buy window treatments, instead of providing the food that those people deserve, by any realistic standard of the word deserve.

I dont blame you for ignoring it either. For someone like you, you'd be forced to re-evaluate everything you pretend to believe, and it would shatter the arrogance that you are doing everything you can, and should be doing, just as it would for the great majority of us, myself obviously included.

Most importantly, Im insulted that you would even suggest, that I am so short sighted, that I think the answer would be to just ship stuff off for eternity, and that that would solve all the problems, but instead imply an obvious change to the very fabric of our reality in which more equitable systems are in place, to allow all to help provide for themselves. In any case, suggesting that you need to let lots of children die to help a group out is about as close to being sociopathic as you can be.

I disagree.

Lemme ask you something, have things been getting better or worst for people (divided into all income brackets) in the world?

You disagree, because you think that question is relevant. My point is that as a Christian, its irrelevant if one bracket is getting better, but only relevant that they have the means to help one of Gods Children.

I am not so much arguing what is the best way to solve the worlds hunger issues, that is a separate discussion, and not one that God or Christ would be interested in, any more than a Parent of starving children would be consoled that some other town happened to be doing well.

Hmm, I'm not understanding you because we're splitting into several points, so could you please clarify your position?

(make a new post, if you don't mind; this one's getting too lengthy).

[BigBallinStalin]

Self-sacrificing a society's/group's wealth and transferring it to another group some place far away won't improve that group in the long-run.

Letting that group die will not improve that group in the long run either.

I've already explained how the alternative is not the best choice due to the unintended consequences... In this sense, you are advocating for "letting" them be harmed by well-intended yet disastrous plans.

[_sabotage_]

How is providing a chance at a decent life to the worst among us mean that the rest of us will suffer? I think you have looked at one too many charts.

The Rand Drug Policy Research Center study concluded that $3 billion should be switched from federal and local law enforcement to treatment. The report said that treatment is the cheapest way to cut drug use, stating that drug treatment is twenty-three times more effective than the supply-side "war on drugs".[132]

23 times more effective. And yet, we did the exact opposite. Instead of helping the worst off in society, drug addicts who have reached the point where they recognize and seek treatment, we gave Columbia the money to buy weapons from us to fight the war on drugs. We thereby fucked up Columbia, making those in the country worse than before. We set up Mobotu in the Congo and fucked up that region and made the worse off worse. A fence is only as strong as its weakest link. We can continue to put people in prison so that we can provide comfy jobs for police or we can try to bring equality into the equation. If we have more or less the same then crime will more or less disappear. Instead we feed our rich even more and kick our poor further into the muck. If we don't improve the lives of the worst off, whose do we improve?

[AAFitz]

Self-sacrificing a society's/group's wealth and transferring it to another group some place far away won't improve that group in the long-run.

Letting that group die will not improve that group in the long run either.

I've already explained how the alternative is not the best choice due to the unintended consequences... In this sense, you are advocating for "letting" them be harmed by well-intended yet disastrous plans.

No, I am advocating saving them from imminent death, and you are advocating letting them die, for some futuristic pipe dreamed utopia, where greed solves all problems through a magic free market.

Furthermore, I am absolutely suggesting non-disastrous plans be used.

Right now, we produce enough food to feed 9 billion people. There are only 7ish. It is our current plans that are disastrous, not those that will save them.

You are just assuming I am talking about an infinite charitable state for some ridiculous reason, but as a business owner, and a capitalist, I understand human nature at its basic level, and know full well, that such a system can never work. However, the current one means millions of suffering, starving children as well, so as a Christian, one is failing their teachings, by not doing more to prevent that, every single day.

[AAFitz]

How is providing a chance at a decent life to the worst among us mean that the rest of us will suffer? I think you have looked at one too many charts.

The Rand Drug Policy Research Center study concluded that $3 billion should be switched from federal and local law enforcement to treatment. The report said that treatment is the cheapest way to cut drug use, stating that drug treatment is twenty-three times more effective than the supply-side "war on drugs".[132]

23 times more effective. And yet, we did the exact opposite. Instead of helping the worst off in society, drug addicts who have reached the point where they recognize and seek treatment, we gave Columbia the money to buy weapons from us to fight the war on drugs. We thereby fucked up Columbia, making those in the country worse than before. We set up Mobotu in the Congo and fucked up that region and made the worse off worse. A fence is only as strong as its weakest link. We can continue to put people in prison so that we can provide comfy jobs for police or we can try to bring equality into the equation. If we have more or less the same then crime will more or less disappear. Instead we feed our rich even more and kick our poor further into the muck. If we don't improve the lives of the worst off, whose do we improve?

I just recently had a Cop tell me most of the people he had to deal with weren't so much criminals, as mentally ill. Hes a Grand olde party, AR15 owning republican to the core but had no problem pointing out that Reagan's dismantling of the mental ill infrastructure for a good portion of our societies criminal problems.

And while off topic, how sane is a guy suggesting that insurance companies provide care for mentally ill people. I mean, call me crazy, but how the f*ck is a crazy person who needs treatment, going to get a job to pay for insurance, to get treatment so he can get a job so he can get insurance to pay for treatment so he can get a job.

Its not so much crazy, as utterly fucking stupid....or in that case, callous, uncaring, and by definition un-Christian.

[PLAYER57832]

Suppose you know that if your friend enters the convenience store, in about 10 minutes, he'll be murdered by a robber.
All you have to do is say, "Hey, let's go to the other convenience store."

You then saved your friend's life. Pat yourself on the back.



Since God is allegedly omniscient, then he has the ability to prevent many unnecessary deaths. Yet, he doesn't intervene. He simply lets many people unnecessarily die.

Is this negligent?
What kind of dickhead lets someone die like that?
"Sorry, dude, but you know, I can't directly intervene cuz free will--except for all those times when I intervened about 2000 years ago."


Doesn't make any sense at all.

Ho, Hum... not even going to read through the pages, because the answer is quite obvious.

On one level, if God did intervene individually in such matters, it would mean we have no free will, no choice. Why even worry about a robber if God can just stop it.. if all you have to do is pray, even and "magic", then all but the most idiotic would worship God without much thought.


On a second level, God has a general vision for humanity. This means risk, it means watching failure and utterly horrid acts, but with his knowledge that the END result will be good, what God wants. In the time, knowledge and understanding of God, these bad events are like the tragedy of a loss of a toy or some other issue in childhood might be for us. No parent really wants to see their child cry, fall and get bruised. Yet, we also know that preventing all such will stifle our children. As humans, we even understand that we have to actually let our children go down the street... even if they might get hit by the car. Eventually, we have to let them go and make their own choices, even if some might be very bad, indeed. And..there is a limit to how much we should intervene. A child losing a house because they were stupid.. a good parent won't bail them out. A child who gets ill and faces losing their home as a result.. most parents, most people in general, will help to the extent they are able.

Our deaths are not meaningless to God, our hurts are hurts that God does not like, but God's time is so much longer and his length of vision so much wider and longer that God knows intervening is not really what is best for us, even if it hurts us.

What God can, what Christians and others believe God does do individually is to support followers and believers in various ways. However, the thing about that is the best helps come in times and ways when things might seem to be going the worst from the outside, particularly to people who have no desire to understand or care about faith.

Still, if God did not benefit people, they would never believe. So, in the end, whether you believe or not is irrelevant. Many people do and are happy to do so.