What Is Communist Socialism?

[veteran]

Sorry, but, I'm done with this. I feel like you aren't actually responding to anything I say with anything but tautologies ("My view is right because it is right"). I feel like you aren't even listening enough to my posts to understand we are using the terms differently and actually address my points instead of call me a liar and a sinner, say that communism is not what communism is explicitly defined to be (or, even, recognize the definition I am using when I say communism, ignoring me repeat that if the state, rather than the workers, controls the means of production, the term I use is state capitalism, because that type of economy is not a form of communism and could be a form of socialism in only the loosest sense), and make claims which are not even internally consistent about the nations which are supposedly communist.
I have explained, based on the tenets of both communism and socialism how the countries you name follow the principles of neither, and you use this to attack my viewpoint as ignorant of what communist nations do. I know what "communist" nations do, how they are run, and so on, but I also know that they have about as much to do with communism as they do with democracy, or about as much to do with communism as Jim Jones or the Spanish Inquisition had to do with Christianity. Their people and workers are still kept in chains and exploited by their masters, the only difference is that it is simply the state, rather than corporations, which exploit them for personal profit. The "communist" nations you name, economically, run exactly the same as capitalist countries, merely with the state replacing the role of private corporations; the workers do not control the means of production, and this is the most central tenet of communism.
Finally, you ignore any element which you cannot refute with circular tautologies or calling me a liar; first, my question about whose labour it is that makes your shoes, and whose wealth comes from their sale; then you disregard my quote from the scripture. Those work do the work to make things very rarely are the ones who make the profits, being offered a portion far less than their work in even the best cases; the quote, said by Christ, doesn't say to give ten percent of one's wealth to the state, it says to sell everything and give the money away to the poor.

I don't think this debate is going anywhere, and I don't feel that you're really listening to anything I'm saying.

I have one question, after your answer to which, I won't check this thread again. It's pointless and will only create animosity and division.

What is morally wrong about sharing, giving up unneeded wealth to those in poverty, and workers being treated fairly? This is the essence of what I'm arguing, and you keep telling me it is evil. Without conspiracy theories as to who is or isn't communist, bringing up Hitler, or talking about how Obama is a socialist, please explain to me how sharing is evil. That's all I want to know, because all I have been saying this entire time is that sharing is not evil.

Not only have I paid attention to what you've written, but I've pointed to real history of the workings of Communist Socialism, and its philosophy, to show how its ideas and practices are a lie. I have not insulted you in doing any of that. But if you feel I've insulted those who adhere to Communist Socialism and their tenets who started the lie by showing how such a philosophy has never worked, then so be it. Otherwise, your false claim of personal insult is nothing more than an attempt to back out of the debate to save some face.

Moreover, Communist Socialism is NOT about sharing per Biblical doctrine. Nor do those living a monastic life practice the principles of Communist Socialism, simply because they denounce the ownership of goods of THEIR OWN CHOICE. Under Communist Socialism the state removes those rights WITHOUT ASKING. There's a huge difference.

 

[TexUs]

Nor do those living a monastic life practice the principles of Communist Socialism, simply because they denounce the ownership of goods of THEIR OWN CHOICE. Under Communist Socialism the state removes those rights WITHOUT ASKING. There's a huge difference.

I agree but as been pointed out, "true" communism has no state...
But as I've pointed out, without a state to force you do do it, depraved man won't willingly do this.

 

[deprofundis]

Dude, Greed happened when "what's around us" was what God had put there... Man desired MORE than he had been given.

I think the influence of Satan had a little bit to do with that. I believe that people are inherently good, and outside factors can turn them to wickedness or keep them on the path of good. Even if there is some predisposition to selfishness, before society has its say, it will draw its limit, I believe, at the suffering of another. It is society which teaches us that it is acceptable to ignore others' suffering for our own benefit.

I'd even say in the new heavens and new earth, there won't be communism, as what means of production do we see? It seems to be the production comes from Christ, not the body.

With this, I'll agree. I speak only of the world in which we live here and now.

Communism is nothing more than a pipe dream that'll never happen once you understand the nature of man.

Maybe so, but I'd rather try for a pipe dream that may fail to greed than accept a philosophy that will "succeed" because of it. It's a "pipe dream," to live without Sin, as well, but we still try our best to achieve that, don't we?

Not only have I paid attention to what you've written, but I've pointed to real history of the workings of Communist Socialism, and its philosophy, to show how its ideas and practices are a lie. I have not insulted you in doing any of that. But if you feel I've insulted those who adhere to Communist Socialism and their tenets who started the lie by showing how such a philosophy has never worked, then so be it. Otherwise, your false claim of personal insult is nothing more than an attempt to back out of the debate to save some face.

This is what I'm talking about. I have repeatedly said that you refer to something different than I do when I use the word "communism," and you refuse to acknowledge this, my explanations of what I mean by communism and why I would not call what you "Communist Socialist" states either of those things, in favour of repeating that I am wrong about the "nature of communism" and that I am a liar.

Moreover, Communist Socialism is NOT about sharing per Biblical doctrine. Nor do those living a monastic life practice the principles of Communist Socialism, simply because they denounce the ownership of goods of THEIR OWN CHOICE. Under Communist Socialism the state removes those rights WITHOUT ASKING. There's a huge difference.

Okay, so you're saying that so-called-Communist states like the USSR are tyrannical and evil, I understand that. I agree with that. You didn't answer the question, though; Is sharing evil? Is it evil not to exploit workers, and instead compensate them fairly for their labour? Is it evil to live in harmony and equality with one another?

 

[TexUs]

I think the influence of Satan had a little bit to do with that. I believe that people are inherently good, and outside factors can turn them to wickedness or keep them on the path of good.

So you don't believe everyone everywhere is influenced by Satan today? Then why is he called the ruler of this world?

How do you believe people are naturally good? Romans 3:11, Ephesians 2:3, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 6:20, Jeremiah 17:9, Mark 7:21-23, Romans 7:24, Romans 8:7

Romans 14:23 pretty much labels everyone a sinner as well. Unless it's possible to be saved from birth (it's not), Romans 14:23 would be yet one more verse that regulates everyone into wicked sinner realm.


All I can say, is LOOK AT KIDS. They're selfish, evil little people. They bite each other to get what they want, do they model this off of mom and dad? No... They're inherently evil. Of course, they don't know what they're doing is evil, it's not known to them (Read Romans 1, I'd say they're covered by the blood of Christ for this reason, somehow), but the fact remains they're self-centered little brats- to be blunt about it. If what you said were true, they'd be good and perfect beings until they knew what sin was and THEN they'd sometimes choose to do it.

Maybe so, but I'd rather try for a pipe dream that may fail to greed than accept a philosophy that will "succeed" because of it.

You admit it'll fail. Greed is present in both systems, pretending it doesn't won't solve anything.

It's a "pipe dream," to live without Sin, as well, but we still try our best to achieve that, don't we?

Yes, because that's something each one of us can work on, and we are not trying to include unbelievers in our desire to sin, as in what I've quoted above, Christianity is foolish to them. It is not a social-political design inclusive of all people. You are forcing your beliefs on others by doing so. What makes "greed" wrong to the unbeliever? Again, Biblical principles are foolish to them.

Is it evil not to exploit workers, and instead compensate them fairly for their labour? Is it evil to live in harmony and equality with one another?

You must think Christ was an evil bastard for condoning slavery and master-slave status, then.

 

[deprofundis]

So you don't believe everyone everywhere is influenced by Satan today? Then why is he called the ruler of this world?

How do you believe people are naturally good? Romans 3:11, Ephesians 2:3, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 6:20, Jeremiah 17:9, Mark 7:21-23, Romans 7:24, Romans 8:7

Romans 14:23 pretty much labels everyone a sinner as well. Unless it's possible to be saved from birth (it's not), Romans 14:23 would be yet one more verse that regulates everyone into wicked sinner realm.

I didn't say people were inherently perfect and without sin. I said people were inherently good. By which I mean that their natural instinct is to help each other and work together, not to climb over the bodies of those they have shoved down on their way to the top. It's pretty easy to see this in societies that don't emphasize "making it," the way most modern ones do.

All I can say, is LOOK AT KIDS. They're selfish, evil little people. They bite each other to get what they want, do they model this off of mom and dad? No... They're inherently evil. Of course, they don't know what they're doing is evil, it's not known to them (Read Romans 1, I'd say they're covered by the blood of Christ for this reason, somehow), but the fact remains they're self-centered little brats- to be blunt about it. If what you said were true, they'd be good and perfect beings until they knew what sin was and THEN they'd sometimes choose to do it.

Mots kids I know stopped biting etc. around the time they understood enough about the world to get that biting hurts, and feel bad about doing it to others. The ones who didn't were bullies, and there were some, but they sure weren't most kids.

You admit it'll fail. Greed is present in both systems, pretending it doesn't won't solve anything.

I admitted that it could fail, and, again, I'd rather a system that doesn't encourage greed, at least.

Yes, because that's something each one of us can work on, and we are not trying to include unbelievers in our desire to sin, as in what I've quoted above, Christianity is foolish to them. It is not a social-political design inclusive of all people. You are forcing your beliefs on others by doing so. What makes "greed" wrong to the unbeliever? Again, Biblical principles are foolish to them.

I know a lot of atheists far more troubled by greed than most Christians I know. Secular folks can have morals, too, you know?

You must think Christ was an evil bastard for condoning slavery and master-slave status, then.

What makes you say that? I think you read the question backwards.

 

[aspen]

De Profundis

Your responses are measured and well thought out. I am enjoying reading this thread.

 

[TexUs]

I didn't say people were inherently perfect and without sin. I said people were inherently good. By which I mean that their natural instinct is to help each other and work together, not to climb over the bodies of those they have shoved down on their way to the top. It's pretty easy to see this in societies that don't emphasize "making it," the way most modern ones do.

Mots kids I know stopped biting etc. around the time they understood enough about the world to get that biting hurts, and feel bad about doing it to others. The ones who didn't were bullies, and there were some, but they sure weren't most kids.

Why is that?
I'd propose it's still selfish self-preservation instinct, it has nothing to do with thinking of others.

A kid can weigh his options
A) Take the cookie, if I get caught, might get spanked.
B) Don't take the cookie, no chance of punishment, but I don't get a cookie

He is weighing his options for HIMSELF, not others.

Adults
A) I can backstab this person to make my career go farther, but it could damage my reputation
B) I could abstain from that, but I wouldn't make as much money for myself, but I would still keep myself in high regard

Again, it's a selfish decision based on self and not others.

The "good" of people is an illusion based upon keeping others in check, not the inherit goodness of others.

I admitted that it could fail, and, again, I'd rather a system that doesn't encourage greed, at least.

Nothing says you can't give all your belongings away.
You are, once more, trying to force your principles upon people that think them foolish.
To the secular world, there's nothing that tells them greed is wrong. The Bible tells us, these things are foolish to them.
Would Christ have tried to force his ideal government on others or did he say, leave to Caesar that which is Caesar's? We can, with our Christian outlook, be involved in the process, but I don't see anywhere where forcing our entire worldview on others is in anyway Biblical.

What makes you say that? I think you read the question backwards.

You were speaking against getting paid "unfairly". Woe are the McDonalds workers, right?
Christ supported Master-Slave (read: NO PAY) relationships. Thus, you must think he was an evil bastard.

 

[aspen]

Based on my experience, people are basically self-serving, with a primitive understanding of right and wrong. They are created good, but lack trust and perspective-taking skills. Jesus came to love us so that we could learn to trust and love like we were created to do. People are not totally depraved or evil, although their self-serving actions, generated by a lack of trust do cause evil through a misuse of creation.

 

[TexUs]

People are not totally depraved or evil

The Bible disagrees with you but considering your Catholic bias I would expect you need to uphold your opinion.
Romans 3:11, Ephesians 2:3, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 6:20, Jeremiah 17:9, Mark 7:21-23, Romans 7:24, Romans 8:7, Romans 14:23

 

[aspen]

The Bible disagrees with you but considering your Catholic bias I would expect you need to uphold your opinion.
[font="tahoma] [url="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%203.11"]Romans 3:11[/url], Ephesians 2:3, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 6:20, Jeremiah 17:9, Mark 7:21-23, Romans 7:24, Romans 8:7, Romans 14:23 [/font]

Well, I did say "based on my experience" so I am open to learning. I read and agree with everyone of the verses you listed. I think Jeremiah 17:9 came pretty close to totally depraved, but not quite. It would seem to me that all the verses support what I said - that people are basically self-seeking - selfish or prideful. Yet according to Genesis 1:31, we were counted among God's entire creation, which He called "very good". And right before that in Genesis 1:27, we were created in His image. We are good people who have lost our ability to love and trust. It took Jesus to love us first, in order for us to trust Him enough to teach us how to love, once more.

None of the verses you listed tell us that we are totally depraved.

 

[TexUs]

I think Jeremiah 17:9 came pretty close to totally depraved, but not quite.

How about an OT example, I use this one for Jewish folks...
Psalm 51:5
Sinful at conception.

Yet according to Genesis 1:31, we were counted among God's entire creation, which He called "very good".

A few things.
1) You could argue Adam and Eve WERE good, and thus we have inherited original sin from them, Romans 5 talks of this.
2) God works everything for good, even sin, so would you not think creation as a whole will work to his will and end up good? God isn't "duking" it out with Satan and sin and we just hope God wins...
3) IMO, God had to create Satan with the ability to deceive. If you don't believe this then it means Satan garnered this ability from another entity, which means there was something pre-existent other than God, which I don't believe is Biblical. So God created the ability and more than that, he had to have created the THOUGHT process that lead to it- it came from somewhere. A child doesn't think about cookies until he has seen one and knows what it is. We know, Biblically, God can control and prevent sin if he wishes so I'd say sin was simply part of his original plan as well, which seems to be re-enforced with Christ slain before the foundation of the world. Now- this argument is obviously one that's almost entirely pure speculation based on my limited human knowledge. It's just a theory, and I'm probably wrong, but it makes the most sense to what I can see in the entirety of Scripture. I will readily say "I don't really know" how this creation process worked exactly, we aren't told. All I can do is speculate.

 

[aspen]

How about an OT example, I use this one for Jewish folks...
Psalm 51:5
Sinful at conception.



A few things.
1) You could argue Adam and Eve WERE good, and thus we have inherited original sin from them, Romans 5 talks of this.
2) God works everything for good, even sin, so would you not think creation as a whole will work to his will and end up good? God isn't "duking" it out with Satan and sin and we just hope God wins...
3) IMO, God had to create Satan with the ability to deceive. If you don't believe this then it means Satan garnered this ability from another entity, which means there was something pre-existent other than God, which I don't believe is Biblical. So God created the ability and more than that, he had to have created the THOUGHT process that lead to it- it came from somewhere. A child doesn't think about cookies until he has seen one and knows what it is. We know, Biblically, God can control and prevent sin if he wishes so I'd say sin was simply part of his original plan as well, which seems to be re-enforced with Christ slain before the foundation of the world. Now- this argument is obviously one that's almost entirely pure speculation based on my limited human knowledge. It's just a theory, and I'm probably wrong, but it makes the most sense to what I can see in the entirety of Scripture. I will readily say "I don't really know" how this creation process worked exactly, we aren't told. All I can do is speculate.

I agree that speculation is what we are left with. For me, I cannot believe that God planned for sin to enter the world for a good reason - although, I know that He knew it would happen and brought about a higher form of good that Adam and Eve were not created with - the understanding and ability to accept and give the grace of forgiveness. I share the same understanding of sin as Augustine - it is not a force, but the absence or misuse of good. We learned from Adam and Eve to misuse God's good creation - misuse is always a result of selfishness, which is Original Sin.

 

[veteran]

I think the influence of Satan had a little bit to do with that. I believe that people are inherently good, and outside factors can turn them to wickedness or keep them on the path of good. Even if there is some predisposition to selfishness, before society has its say, it will draw its limit, I believe, at the suffering of another. It is society which teaches us that it is acceptable to ignore others' suffering for our own benefit.


With this, I'll agree. I speak only of the world in which we live here and now.


Maybe so, but I'd rather try for a pipe dream that may fail to greed than accept a philosophy that will "succeed" because of it. It's a "pipe dream," to live without Sin, as well, but we still try our best to achieve that, don't we?


This is what I'm talking about. I have repeatedly said that you refer to something different than I do when I use the word "communism," and you refuse to acknowledge this, my explanations of what I mean by communism and why I would not call what you "Communist Socialist" states either of those things, in favour of repeating that I am wrong about the "nature of communism" and that I am a liar.


Okay, so you're saying that so-called-Communist states like the USSR are tyrannical and evil, I understand that. I agree with that. You didn't answer the question, though; Is sharing evil? Is it evil not to exploit workers, and instead compensate them fairly for their labour? Is it evil to live in harmony and equality with one another?

You still haven't realized that the PHILOSOPHY of Communist Socialism is a lie to begin with. It won't ever work because it's against basic human nature and the way God created us. Yet you still believe the 'seed' of its philosophy is its true form when its ideas are only a propaganda mask of those who proposed it which they themselves could never follow.

It's like someone thinking they can go to bed at night and if they dream hard enough, they'll eventually wake up living in a man-made Utopia. It simply does not exist, and never will exist in this world. The only perfect government that can ever be is Christ's government when He returns. And per Bible prophecy Christ's future reign is not going to be about Communist Socialism either. Under Christ's reign everyone that works will enjoy the fruits of their labor, and none will take it away, just as the quote from Isaiah I gave reveals.

This point is where those who think Communism-Socialism might be a good thing simply have not matured in their thinking, because that philosophy today is being used to form a world socialist government over all nations prior to Christ's return, and it's about a vain attempt to copy Christ's perfect government as Monarch of the future after His return. Man cannot copy that, but that's exactly what Satan's servants on earth are trying to do. They also have the plan to institute their "king of the world" in place of Christ Jesus. That won't work either, but those deceived by the seeds of their philosophy will think it possible, and that's part of the great falling away of many of God's people in the last days, because quite a few western Church systems are already on the world Socialist's boat, working for it and pushing its philosophy in their Churches.

And yes, I did answer about the idea of sharing per God's Word vs. the philosophy of Communist Socialism. You can claim all you want that I haven't addressed that, but it only shows you chose to disregard what I wrote.

 

[aspen]

You still haven't realized that the PHILOSOPHY of Communist Socialism is a lie to begin with. It won't ever work because it's against basic human nature and the way God created us. Yet you still believe the 'seed' of its philosophy is its true form when its ideas are only a propaganda mask of those who proposed it which they themselves could never follow.

It's like someone thinking they can go to bed at night and if they dream hard enough, they'll eventually wake up living in a man-made Utopia. It simply does not exist, and never will exist in this world. The only perfect government that can ever be is Christ's government when He returns. And per Bible prophecy Christ's future reign is not going to be about Communist Socialism either. Under Christ's reign everyone that works will enjoy the fruits of their labor, and none will take it away, just as the quote from Isaiah I gave reveals.

This point is where those who think Communism-Socialism might be a good thing simply have not matured in their thinking, because that philosophy today is being used to form a world socialist government over all nations prior to Christ's return, and it's about a vain attempt to copy Christ's perfect government as Monarch of the future after His return. Man cannot copy that, but that's exactly what Satan's servants on earth are trying to do. They also have the plan to institute their "king of the world" in place of Christ Jesus. That won't work either, but those deceived by the seeds of their philosophy will think it possible, and that's part of the great falling away of many of God's people in the last days, because quite a few western Church systems are already on the world Socialist's boat, working for it and pushing its philosophy in their Churches.

And yes, I did answer about the idea of sharing per God's Word vs. the philosophy of Communist Socialism. You can claim all you want that I haven't addressed that, but it only shows you chose to disregard what I wrote.

Aren't all human philosophies, lies? How is Communism anymore of a human philosophy than the system we live under in the US?

 

[veteran]

I didn't say people were inherently perfect and without sin. I said people were inherently good. By which I mean that their natural instinct is to help each other and work together, not to climb over the bodies of those they have shoved down on their way to the top. It's pretty easy to see this in societies that don't emphasize "making it," the way most modern ones do.

Why not apply that "climb over the bodies of those they have shoved down" to Communist Socialism, for that's exactly... what that system of thinking has done per its history? When Vietnam and Cambodia fell to Communism they LITERALLY climbed over the bodies of those they executed when they came to power. In Cambodia the Khymer Rouge murdered an estimated 10 million people. Stalin murdered an estimated 8 million Soviet citizens using the principles of Communist Socialism. The Viet Cong in Vietnam would sneak into villages at night and steal young men from their farmer families, murder reps of the South Vietnamese government and any of their own citizens who opposed them. Now that's real brotherly love under Communist Socialism isn't it? Not only that, but during the '68' Tet offensive, the Viet Cong farmer guerilla force virtually ceased to exist by the Communist leaders in the North sacrificing them as a fighting force.

Disregarding that history of Communist Socialism while trying to apply the principle of greed to westerners just doesn't make sense.

I admitted that it could fail, and, again, I'd rather a system that doesn't encourage greed, at least.

Could fail? Communist Socialism is a failure from the start, that is for those who don't chose to be blinded to its atrocities, especially in the area of human rights. A Communist Party system of the 'few' in power literally murdering their own citizens by the truckload, how is that not all about greed and their vain lust for power? How does that system not encourage greed by the few in power when that's the only way Communist Socialism has ever existed?

I know a lot of atheists far more troubled by greed than most Christians I know. Secular folks can have morals, too, you know?

One of the principles Communist Socialism uses is 'the ends justify the means'. That's about the idea that murder, lying, cheating, stealing, etc... is all moral since it's all for the purpose of acheiving their proposed end goal of happiness for all. That's the moral philosophy Communist Socialism has used per its history. That's how Communist propaganda works. "It's all for the cause comrade," they would say. Biblically, who does that kind of thinking and acting follow? Certainly not our Heavenly Father in Heaven. That's also the principle that Adam Weishaupt's Bavarian Illuminati order in the 1700's used for their plan to destroy all the governments and monarchies of 18th century Europe, including the Christian Church (see Proofs Of A Conspiracy' by John Robison - 1798).

So I would hold the idea of secular morality very much in suspicion.

 

[TexUs]

Aren't all human philosophies, lies? How is Communism anymore of a human philosophy than the system we live under in the US?

If it's a Biblical concept (IE, total depravity, all are sinful) then no... This in itself disproves communism as ever being able to work.

De of course says he sees good but as I pointed out, that "good" is not done out of unselfish love for others but done in the interests in self-preservation.

For me, I cannot believe that God planned for sin to enter the world for a good reason - although, I know that He knew it would happen

How do you suppose the thought, "I shall trick Adam and Eve" arrived in Satan's mind?
I'm not saying I'm right but I've yet to have seen someone taking your stance be able to offer any kind of logical explanation for this...

Have you ever seen Inception? I can tell you, "Don't think about elephants." What do you think about? Elephants. Why? Because I gave you the idea in the first place. Thoughts are generated by external sources. Like I said, a kid won't ever think about a cookie until the thought of a cookie is first planted in his head by seeing one, or being told of one, etc. Go back to when there were no external sources other than Creation as it was exactly when God designed it... What influenced Satan to do what he did?
This isn't even a free will thing, even a free will individual still must be given a thought in order to exercise said will.

and brought about a higher form of good that Adam and Eve were not created with - the understanding and ability to accept and give the grace of forgiveness.

Huh? I really don't follow this part. I do believe this comes down to speculation before as it deals with what I've touched on... Adam and Eve could have been created with a different will faculty or something *special* that all following humans did not. There's no evidence for or against this which means it is indeed speculation.

 

[aspen]

If it's a Biblical concept (IE, total depravity, all are sinful) then no... This in itself disproves communism as ever being able to work.

I think you maybe lumping total depravity and sinful into one category - I agree that the Bible teaches us that we are sinful, but does not support the doctrine of total depravity.

De of course says he sees good but as I pointed out, that "good" is not done out of unselfish love for others but done in the interests in self-preservation.

I agree it is a strong tendency in people, but I do not believe selfishness is our only option.

How do you suppose the thought, "I shall trick Adam and Eve" arrived in Satan's mind?

God has made it possible to misuse His creation. I do believe it is a result of freewill - although I recognize that Adam and Eve never had to choose to misuse creation to experience freewill. I have noticed that disobedience or misuse of creation can be a self-rewarding behavior. Lucifer was obviously an intelligent and talented angel, who may have decided to misuse creation without even being tempted - his attempt may have been successful and self-rewarding, at first. I also believe that Adam and Eve could have stumbled upon misusing creation without satan's help. Neither Satan or A&E would have needed to think about the payoff of disobedience - in fact, I think it would have been impossible for them to even imagine it, until they stumbled upon it. However, once Lucifer noticed through his own behavior that he could garner attention from other angels that only belonged to God; he was hooked. Who knows? Perhaps Satan simply wanted Adam and Eve to come to ruin simply out of envy or spite.

As far as Adam and Eve are concerned - the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a magic tree that imparted new powers to them. The very act of disobedience introduced them to the feelings associated with disobedience - since they already knew good - it was kind of a fool's errand. They never had to know how to tell the difference between use and misuse of creation if they never discovered it in the first place. Yet, after they disobeyed God, the fruit was tasty at first - self-rewarding, but it all ended in bitterness in the end. They were left cut off from God's love because their own inability to admit their disobedience caused guilt to turn to shame, blocking their ability to perceive God's love and a primitive, dualistic method of navigating good and evil, which they were never created to have to deal with.

.Have you ever seen Inception? I can tell you, "Don't think about elephants." What do you think about? Elephants. Why? Because I gave you the idea in the first place. Thoughts are generated by external sources. Like I said, a kid won't ever think about a cookie until the thought of a cookie is first planted in his head by seeing one, or being told of one, etc. Go back to when there were no external sources other than Creation as it was exactly when God designed it... What influenced Satan to do what he did?
This isn't even a free will thing, even a free will individual still must be given a thought in order to exercise said will.

I think thoughts are often generated by an outside source, but not always - of course we learn through narrative, but we also learn through sensory experience and revelation. I think it is important to remember (especially when dealing with atheists) that language is inherently reductionistic - it can only describe a small part of our reality. For example, we have many more emotions than we have names to describe them - also, it is difficult to describe a dream because the meaning and symbols generated by our brains are beyond words. We cannot help thinking of elephants when it is mention because we live in a post-enlightenment time, which teaches us that we can understand the completeness of our shared reality using words - it is a lie, of course, but is relies heavily on reason and cognitive ability. Who knows what a child may think when someone asks them to not think of an elephant - how about a blind person or a pre-enlightenment person?

Huh? I really don't follow this part. I do believe this comes down to speculation before as it deals with what I've touched on... Adam and Eve could have been created with a different will faculty or something *special* that all following humans did not. There's no evidence for or against this which means it is indeed speculation.

Actually, we know that A&E did not understand the concept of the highest form of love - forgiveness because they were never created to have to experience a need for it. Forgiveness is an extraordinary "extra" that God has brought forth out of the horrible mess humanity got itself into. Was it worth it? No and yet, it really is a wonderful grace we would never had experienced in the garden. Speaking of speculation - I tend to believe that Adam and Eve sinned and were confronted and then taught about repentance and forgiven instantaneously, but God stretched out the event into time space so that we could see the wrongs we had committed through the Law, how his heart broke for us on the cross, and how his Holy Spirit nurtured and sanctified us - teaching us perspective skills (how it feels to be wronged / the sacrifice necessary for forgiveness and reconciliation).

 

[TexUs]

I think you maybe lumping total depravity and sinful into one category - I agree that the Bible teaches us that we are sinful, but does not support the doctrine of total depravity.

[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]They are the same thing. Total depravity is fancy wording for "totally sinful". A sinful person is depraved, and a depraved person sins. They are the same.[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]If you support one you must support the other, and if you disagree with this then please provide your rationale for why they are different.[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]
[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]But even if there is a difference, you do agree with David that we are all sinful from birth? If this is true, then my point is still clear, no man thinks for anything other than that which is sinful. Communism will 100% of the time fail.[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]
[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]

[/color][/font]God has made it possible to misuse His creation.

In other words, you believe he gave them a will to do so. Like I said, this isn't about will, this is about the thought. Weather or not they had a will is really redundant here, where did the thought come from for them to disobey?

would have needed to think about the payoff of disobedience - in fact, I think it would have been impossible for them to even imagine it

Nonsense. God told them, "you will surely die".

However, once Lucifer noticed through his own behavior that he could garner attention from other angels that only belonged to God;

[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]What behavior outside of God's will would gather attention? And who enabled and gave Satan the thought to do that behavior? You must think deeper than you currently are.[/color][/font]

They never had to know how to tell the difference between use and misuse of creation if they never discovered it in the first place.

Again, nonsense. God told them.
[font="tahoma][color="#000080"]
[/color][/font]

Actually, we know that A&E did not understand the concept of the highest form of love

So God's love wasn't as high as it gets? Prove "forgiveness is the highest form of love".

 

[deprofundis]

Why is that?
I'd propose it's still selfish self-preservation instinct, it has nothing to do with thinking of others.

A kid can weigh his options
A) Take the cookie, if I get caught, might get spanked.
B) Don't take the cookie, no chance of punishment, but I don't get a cookie

He is weighing his options for HIMSELF, not others.

Sure, maybe, but I was refering to:
A: Bite my mom, who will be hurt by getting bit
B: Not bite my mom, thus not hurting her.

I never got hit by my parents, they just let me know the consequences of my actions for others and I stopped doing them.

Adults
A) I can backstab this person to make my career go farther, but it could damage my reputation
B) I could abstain from that, but I wouldn't make as much money for myself, but I would still keep myself in high regard

Again, it's a selfish decision based on self and not others.

This logic would be sound if moral people were remotely held in high regard.

Nothing says you can't give all your belongings away.
You are, once more, trying to force your principles upon people that think them foolish.

Actually, I'm not really trying to force anything on anyone. This thread is people telling me communism is evil, Christians can't be communists, communism can't work, etc. I'm saying that I happen to prefer it. I'm not telling you to be a communist, you're telling me not to be one. I don't see how I'm forcing anything but respecting my beliefs on anyone, and even that isn't being "forced" very well, since nobody's really been doing it.

To the secular world, there's nothing that tells them greed is wrong.

This is just patently untrue. Secular philosophers have been speaking out against greed since forever. You seem to have this sort of fallacious reasoning that anyone with a different moral system than your own simply doesn't have one.

You were speaking against getting paid "unfairly". Woe are the McDonalds workers, right?
Christ supported Master-Slave (read: NO PAY) relationships. Thus, you must think he was an evil bastard.

More like "woe to sweat-shop workers," but, regardless.
Corinthians 4:1 "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Also, the word commonly translated as "sodomite" in the New Testament appears in this usage nowhere else in the Greek canon, but is used to represent economic exploitation (and is accordingly translated in some versions as "slave-owner" instead).
Now, that aside, I'm not the one who's been calling others evil. I asked you to tell me why equality and sharing were evil. That isn't me saying the opposite is evil, and there's not really any reason to assume it is. Speaking of having asked that question, I notice that it remains altogether unanswered, since, instead, you tried to accuse me of calling Jesus evil.

And yes, I did answer about the idea of sharing per God's Word vs. the philosophy of Communist Socialism. You can claim all you want that I haven't addressed that, but it only shows you chose to disregard what I wrote.

Well, see, that wasn't the question I asked. The question I asked was a very simple one, to which there were two answers ("yes" and "no"). Now, from those two answers, please answer the following question:
Is sharing evil?


I don't really see why you guys have so hard a time telling me whether or not you think sharing is evil. You have to type, at most, three letters. I'm not going to judge you for either answer, I just want to know your opinion.

 

[TexUs]

Sure, maybe, but I was refering to:
A: Bite my mom, who will be hurt by getting bit
B: Not bite my mom, thus not hurting her.

They don't perceive to GAIN anything by doing that so they don't. Once more, motivated by self.

This logic would be sound if moral people were remotely held in high regard.

It has nothing to do with "morals" in the traditional sense, I was describing a business situation. Step on people to get more money and higher rung on the ladder, and thus live with knowing people are now pissed at you and will be seeking your downfall, or don't make more money but live in fake "harmony" so to speak. You make your decision based on what YOU value more: reputation, or money.

This thread is people telling me communism is evil, Christians can't be communists, communism can't work, etc. I'm saying that I happen to prefer it. I'm not telling you to be a communist, you're telling me not to be one. I don't see how I'm forcing anything but respecting my beliefs on anyone, and even that isn't being "forced" very well, since nobody's really been doing it.

Actually I don't really think Communism, in the traditional "Utopian" sense, is evil at all, I just think it's a stupid and pointless ambition that'll always fail, and there's no sense in attempting it.

This is just patently untrue. Secular philosophers have been speaking out against greed since forever. You seem to have this sort of fallacious reasoning that anyone with a different moral system than your own simply doesn't have one.

The Bible says it's foolish to them. Who am I to believe, you or the Bible?
Of course we all have a basic set of morals. I believe God has given even the secular world the sense that "murder is wrong". They can't explain where this sense comes from, apart from the law of the land. But they feel PERSONALLY convicted by this, and not everyone is the same. Not everyone will feel the same convictions. You necessarily need all 6 Billion people on Earth to share these convictions and it just won't happen. Ever.

Now, that aside, I'm not the one who's been calling others evil. I asked you to tell me why equality and sharing were evil.

I'm not. Not everyone shares these Christian principles and attempting to force it on everyone, is indeed evil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great