How come the orthodoxest country in the world, ie Greece...

[RVG]

is also the shittiest ?

--
« Dieu n'est-il pas le poète suprême en tant qu'il improvise les mondes ? »
Vladimir Jankélévitch


http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
http://bluedusk.blogspot.com/

[JamesD]

On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:48:22 PM UTC-7, RVG wrote:
> is also the shittiest ?
>

I thought France was the worst. You've been whining now for several weeks
about how rotten France is and France is not an Orthodox country. And how
would you have enjoyed living in atheistic Soviet Russia during the days of
Stalin and his godless cronies? Or dirt-poor China under Mao? Or how about the
starving hoards of Northern Korea? There you can sit back and enjoy your fellow
atheists and starve to death. But it's so much easier to sit at your computer
in France and whine... isn't it?!

[Todd]

On 05/27/2012 01:48 PM, RVG wrote:
> is also the shittiest ?

This happens when the body politic does not follow the
commandments. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors
possessions". In other words, "Socialism" does this
to a country. It is a lack of Orthodoxy that is
causing the problem.

What caused Orthodox Russia to rack up 72 million murders?
Same thing. Coveting/Socialism. A lack of Orthodoxy
caused that problem too.

Orthodox teaching and the presence of the Orthodox, and other
Christians for that matter, does not mean that the body
politic pays any attention to Christian teaching.

Speaking of Covetousness, there are those around us that
would rather live in squalor and tyranny, than live 100
times better off under freedom and allow his neighbor
to take advantage of that freedom and run circles around
him. "Its just not fair!"

You are as cantankerous as ever. A good thing.

Yours in Christ,
-T

[JamesD]

On Sunday, May 27, 2012 3:36:18 PM UTC-7, Todd wrote:
> On 05/27/2012 01:48 PM, RVG wrote:
> > is also the shittiest ?

> You are as cantankerous as ever. A good thing.
>
> Yours in Christ,
> -T

I'm not sure that being cantankerous is necessarily a good thing. In this case
it seems to me that Vassili's being difficult to deal with is more the result
of his despair. And despair is never a good thing. Someone else mentioned some
time back that he found it difficult to believe that Vassili had truly exhausted
his options (in terms of calling priests and other Orthodox believers and
asking for help). Whenever "options" were provided by Orthodox Christians on
this forum, they were always met with posts declaring them to be impossible. In
other words, the situation was impossible with everything and everyone massed
against him. That's despair talking. I find it odd that he presents himself as
such a rational being when it comes to discussions of God and science and such
an irrational person when it comes to searching for ways and means of resolving
his current problem. And I believe that it's the hopelessness in which he's
allowed himself to be swallowed. You lose faith in God and what do you have
left? Hopelessness and despair. And what does that lead to? Thoughts of killing
oneself which he's presented here. And the more we try and get him to see this
simple truth, to admit to it and to run to God via the Church, the bible, and
prayer... the more resistance we are presented with. I'm afraid it is going to
take more drastic measures before salvation comes (if it does... one would hope
that he has not quenched the Holy Spirit for we know that there does come a time
when the Spirit of God withdraws from a man). All we can really do is pray and
I've promised to do that.

[Todd]

On 05/27/2012 01:48 PM, RVG wrote:

> shittiest

Okay. Okay. I have this one. Although I do not know
the exact meaning of this word, I have gathered
some clues from context.

I have actually heard this word used before, mostly
when people hurt themselves. And, typically followed
by the statement "Pardon my French!"

So, this is what I have put together. It is the
French equivalent for the English word "golly",
only, I suspect, a bit "ruder".

-T

One of these days I am going to have to look
that word up. :-)

[Todd]

Please no one take a single word I am about to say
seriously! Perhaps. :-)

Hi Vassily,

I heard that Dear Leader hit his knew and broke out in
a spree of French. And, somewhere I remember a picture
catching him riding a bicycle with a roll on unwrapped
French bread under his arm. (I get the piece on the end!)
This supposedly outs him as a French spy.

As you have previously stated, you think Sarkozy is
a CIA agent. Would you agree to a spy swap? We would
even throw a statue of Dear Leader pointing upward and
onward in Lenin statue fashion. (You will have to provide
you own bucket of Bull Skat for the arm).

What do you think?

Your "nut" in Christ,
-T

[Todd]

Hi James,

I do think there in something in addition that we all seems
to be missing. Vassily is a shut in, he has an enormous
intellect, his broken mind only really works well
when he is writing, he can resist pulling our chains, and
mostly, although he is not admitting it, he is LONELY.

-T

p.s. when he gets cantankerous, I do not believe 1/4 of what he
says. I think he is saying those things so we will write him
back. We are his tribe, so to speak. And, I don't think
he is even an atheist.

[JamesD]

Perhaps you are right. I hope so. In the end, however, we cannot
really know what is in the heart of another. And speculation is
useless. I'm at a loss to know how to advise him and so I've
decided against any further attempts. From this point on, I will
simply pray and leave off on the advice. Lord, have mercy.

[Todd]

I think we should all just try to be his friend.

[RVG]

Le 28/05/2012 00:36, Todd a écrit :
> On 05/27/2012 01:48 PM, RVG wrote:
>> is also the shittiest ?
>
> This happens when the body politic does not follow the commandments.
> "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors possessions". In other words,
> "Socialism" does this to a country. It is a lack of Orthodoxy that is
> causing the problem.
>

Check your figures: the socialists may represent between 48 et 52% of
the Greek population depending on the year, but there are like 95% of
Orthodox.

I don't see a lack of Orthodoxy in a country where every citizen is
either an Orthodox or an immigrant.

[RVG]

Le 28/05/2012 04:23, Todd a écrit :
> On 05/27/2012 01:48 PM, RVG wrote:
>> shittiest
>
> Okay. Okay. I have this one. Although I do not know the exact meaning
> of this word, I have gathered some clues from context.
>
> I have actually heard this word used before, mostly when people hurt
> themselves. And, typically followed by the statement "Pardon my
> French!"
>
> So, this is what I have put together. It is the French equivalent for
> the English word "golly", only, I suspect, a bit "ruder".
>

Like all Americans, you're unable to express yourself in any other
language than your native adapted version of English.

[++]

On May 30, 1:37 pm, Todd <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 05/29/2012 01:36 PM, JamesD wrote:

Would people please stop patronizing individuals who regularly post
here by speaking about them in the third person? Address people
directly

[Todd]

On 05/31/2012 09:47 AM, RVG wrote:
> Le 28/05/2012 04:23, Todd a écrit :
>> On 05/27/2012 01:48 PM, RVG wrote:
>>> shittiest
>>
>> Okay. Okay. I have this one. Although I do not know the exact meaning
>> of this word, I have gathered some clues from context.
>>
>> I have actually heard this word used before, mostly when people hurt
>> themselves. And, typically followed by the statement "Pardon my
>> French!"
>>
>> So, this is what I have put together. It is the French equivalent for
>> the English word "golly", only, I suspect, a bit "ruder".
>>
>
> Like all Americans, you're unable to express yourself in any other
> language than your native adapted version of English.
>
>

This is why we occasionally steal French words, like
je ne sais quoi. We have no pride.

Why is it that when others learn our language, they
always start with the above words?

#%@! I hit my knee
#%@! this food tastes terrible
Can you help me push my push my #%@*$%# car?
Which way to the #$%@&%$ Home Depot

We are all doomed! :-)

-T

[Todd]

On 05/31/2012 09:46 AM, RVG wrote:
> Le 28/05/2012 00:36, Todd a écrit :
>> On 05/27/2012 01:48 PM, RVG wrote:
>>> is also the shittiest ?
>>
>> This happens when the body politic does not follow the commandments.
>> "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors possessions". In other words,
>> "Socialism" does this to a country. It is a lack of Orthodoxy that is
>> causing the problem.
>>
>
> Check your figures: the socialists may represent between 48 et 52% of
> the Greek population depending on the year, but there are like 95% of
> Orthodox.
>
> I don't see a lack of Orthodoxy in a country where every citizen is
> either an Orthodox or an immigrant.
>

Hi Vassily,

Fascinating statistics. Do you have any figures on
how many are "practicing" Orthodox versus how many
being Orthodox is just an association thing?

Also, do you know the same statistics on Russia
before the fall to Communism? Be very interesting
what percent was Orthodox.

And, do not mistake someone being Orthodox as
someone being successful at it. Covetousness can
be powerfully seductive. From your statistics,
the point should be that the Orthodox Church should
kick up its teaching of the commandments/morality.
You need to actually "be" Orthodox, not just "say"
you are Orthodox.

In my former Roman Catholic days, I can not tell
you how many Catholics were by association and
never went to church or even knew what the beliefs
were.

The Greeks partied off of other peoples money
like there was no tomorrow. Trouble is, Socialism
is a bitch when you run out of other people's money,
as Greece is now finding out.

On another subject, are you remembering to eat?

Speaking of "Pink Unicorns", have you been able to
do a drug interaction check?

http://www.drugs.com/drug_interactions.html
http://reference.medscape.com/drug-interactionchecker

Yours in Christ,
-T

[Alexander Arnakis]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 15:36:18 -0700, Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>This happens when the body politic does not follow the
>commandments. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors
>possessions". In other words, "Socialism" does this
>to a country. It is a lack of Orthodoxy that is
>causing the problem.
>

Wow. I hardly know where to start.

It can be argued that early Christianity was communistic, and that the
early Christians interpreted Christ's teachings to require sharing of
all worldly wealth with the needy, etc.

In Greece, the Communists (the KKE) are between 5% - 10% of the
voters, and most of them are avowed atheists. However, one of their
leading spokespeople, Liana Kanelli, is a self-professed Orthodox
Christian.

When asked in a TV interview what party Christ would vote for, if He
was in Greece today, she replied without hesitation, "the KKE!"

Anyway, in Greece, as in Europe generally, "socialism" is not a dirty
word. The problem with the formal Socialist party in Greece (the
PASOK) is not that it's socialist (which it really isn't) but that
it's full of rent-seeking apparatchiks and euro-technocrats. That's
why it's declining from 44% (in the 2009 elections) to an estimated
12% - 15% now. People would vote for the rent-seekers (the so-called
"clientele state") as long as there was money to be distributed. There
isn't money any more, so the PASOK support has evaporated.

98% of Greeks are nominally Orthodox, but it's a secular country. In
this it's no different from the rest of Europe.

You are wrong in thinking that Orthodoxy is doctrinally opposed to
socialism, communitarianism, etc. In its purest form (monasticism),
Orthodoxy is completely communal and "socialistic." In monastic
communities, it truly is "from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need." There is no sense of private property among
the monks.

There are some super-Orthodox that might even tell you that "private
property is theft." (I've met some such people in Greece.) For such
people, it's but a short step to political Communism.

If you want to read a Greek super-Orthodox tabloid newspaper on line,
here's the url:

http://www.elora.gr/portal/

It puts the National Inquirer to shame. (Helps to be able to read
Greek.)

>What caused Orthodox Russia to rack up 72 million murders?
>Same thing. Coveting/Socialism. A lack of Orthodoxy
>caused that problem too.
>

The root of Russian Communism (as I discussed above) was in Russian
Orthodoxy. Remember that Stalin started out as an Orthodox seminarian.

[JamesD]

Welcome back to the forum, Alex. It's been a while since I've seen
your posts... always astute.

I'm wondering if you would mind clarifying something. In what sense
is the "root of Russian Communism... in Russian Orthodoxy"? The fact
that Stalin started out as an Orthodox seminarian really is
irrelevant and I'm sure you are aware of that. It's a fortuitous
coincidence for your theory, but that is all. So... aside from
Stalin, would you mind elaborating?

[RVG]

Le 02/06/2012 01:16, Todd a écrit :

> The Greeks partied off of other peoples money like there was no
> tomorrow. Trouble is, Socialism is a bitch when you run out of other
> people's money, as Greece is now finding out.
>

The Greeks were already tramps before the Pasok came to power. They
always were. Was there a time when Greece had money of its own ?

[RVG]

And also the fact that the Orthodox clergy was completely reactionary,
supporting feudalism and anti-Semitism and opposing democracy, thus
leaving no other choice than a civil war and an anti-monarchist and
anti-religious dictatorship.
Since the Russian democrats (mensheviks) were unable to enforce the most
needed reforms, Lenin called them "the useful morons" of the
imperial-orthodox tyranny.
John of Cronstadt is the perfect example of this "blessed cretin" who
kept on preaching against democracy while the people of Cronstadt were
revolting against their atrocious condition.

[RVG]

The roots of Eastern socialism are in Byzantium. Capitalism is basically
protestant and started its development in the Hanseatic League made of
the very countries that would develop the reformed faith.

In Catholic countries, capitalism is simply another word for bourgeois
(and liberal nobility from the French Revolution) feudalism. It's not an
opportunity to earn your life by yourself, but a way of accumulating
wealth through generations of oligarchic dynasties as can be seen in the
government of Sarkozy and Berlusconi.
The Catholic right-wing is more reactionary than conservatist. Remember
that ALL the catholic countries were allied or collaborators of Nazi
Germany. At best, like Spain and Ireland for geographical reasons, they
were neutral.
Hitler was a catholic too, and he came to power thanks to the catholic
Centre of the Weimar parliament.

As for the Orthodox, apart from Greece and USSR, the other orthodox
countries also collaborated with the Axis, even Serbia although their
propaganda aims at hiding it.

[RVG]

Le 02/06/2012 00:10, Todd a écrit :
> On 05/31/2012 09:47 AM, RVG wrote:
>> Le 28/05/2012 04:23, Todd a écrit :
>>> On 05/27/2012 01:48 PM, RVG wrote:
>>>> shittiest
>>>
>>> Okay. Okay. I have this one. Although I do not know the exact meaning
>>> of this word, I have gathered some clues from context.
>>>
>>> I have actually heard this word used before, mostly when people hurt
>>> themselves. And, typically followed by the statement "Pardon my
>>> French!"
>>>
>>> So, this is what I have put together. It is the French equivalent for
>>> the English word "golly", only, I suspect, a bit "ruder".
>>>
>>
>> Like all Americans, you're unable to express yourself in any other
>> language than your native adapted version of English.
>>
>>
>
> This is why we occasionally steal French words, like
> je ne sais quoi. We have no pride.
>

English is originally a bastardized version of Norman-French.

[Todd]

On 06/03/2012 11:49 AM, RVG wrote:
>> This is why we occasionally steal French words, like
>> je ne sais quoi. We have no pride.
>>
>
> English is originally a bastardized version of Norman-French.

We do tend to collect up anything we need/like from other languages.
That is why our spelling rules are so crazy.

[Todd]

On 06/02/2012 08:12 PM, Alexander Arnakis wrote:
> You are wrong in thinking that Orthodoxy is doctrinally opposed to
> socialism, communitarianism, etc. In its purest form (monasticism),
> Orthodoxy is completely communal and "socialistic." In monastic
> communities, it truly is "from each according to his ability, to each
> according to his need." There is no sense of private property among
> the monks.
>
> There are some super-Orthodox that might even tell you that "private
> property is theft." (I've met some such people in Greece.) For such
> people, it's but a short step to political Communism.

Hi Alexander,

The concept is easy to grasp. "If you love me, you will
keep my commandments". Coveting thy neighbors property
is forbidden. The human carnage violating this commandment
has caused.

-T

[Alexander Arnakis]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 13:42:51 -0700, Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>The concept is easy to grasp. "If you love me, you will
>keep my commandments". Coveting thy neighbors property
>is forbidden. The human carnage violating this commandment
>has caused.
>

I can turn this argument on its head and say that unbridled capitalism
is "covetous" in that it seeks to enrich itself at the expense of the
just rewards of labor. Reasonably respecting your neighbor's property
does not include condoning usury and exploitation.

Does "your neighbor's property" include property in slaves? For
centuries, these sorts of Old Testament arguments (as you are
enunciating above) were used to justify slavery.

A social redistribution of wealth, based on the criteria of justice
and need, is not "covetous" but, on the contrary, follows the spirit
of Christ's teachings. After all, Christ boiled the commandments down
to two: to love God, and to love one's neighbor as oneself. Christ
actually didn't say a thing about respecting private property. He said
repeatedly that people should give up worldly things in order to
follow Him.

[Alexander Arnakis]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 20:51:30 -0700, JamesD <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>I'm wondering if you would mind clarifying something. In what sense
>is the "root of Russian Communism... in Russian Orthodoxy"? The fact
>that Stalin started out as an Orthodox seminarian really is
>irrelevant and I'm sure you are aware of that. It's a fortuitous
>coincidence for your theory, but that is all. So... aside from
>Stalin, would you mind elaborating?

Go back and look at Russian history, and particularly at the troubled
early relationship between the Church and the tsarist state. When
Peter the Great tried to introduce western modernism, he ran into a
wall of opposition from the majority of the clergy and the laity --
allied with traditional boyars -- which had to be put down through a
combination of bribery and force. Finally the official Church was
staffed with Peter's henchmen, while the rebels turned into the outlaw
Old Believers.

The Old Believers -- really, the exemplars of traditional Russian
Orthodoxy -- had an ideology that revolved around agrarian
communitarianism (sort of a monasticism writ large), and were bitterly
opposed to merchantilism, Western ideas, and modernity in general.
This was anti-capitalism before there was capitalism. These ideas
permeated anti-tsarist rebelliousness throughout the 18th and 19th
centuries, until they merged with Marxist-influenced bolshevism.

[Todd]

Hi Alexander,

Not at all. When one is forced to meet the need of his customers
to meet his own needs, he is not coveting. He is serving.
Think of the money he receives for serving as "certificates of
appreciation". Everyone is forced to server each other. This is
why freedom works so much better than Socialism. It is because
one gets to see the rewards of their own labor. And it is
self policing: no fasces needed. And when tempered with
Christian ethics, the best system out there.

"social redistribution of wealth" breaks another commandment:
thou shalt not steel. Name one instance where Christ told
anyone to steel (or any other form of extortion through the
color of authority) to fund any good work. "redistribution"
is not Christ's teaching. He teaches that you do good
works, not take/steel from someone else to avoid doing good
yourself. This is faith without works.

Yours in Christ,
-T

[Percival P. Cassidy]

On 06/04/12 03:13 pm, Todd wrote:

>>> The concept is easy to grasp. "If you love me, you will
>>> keep my commandments". Coveting thy neighbors property
>>> is forbidden. The human carnage violating this commandment
>>> has caused.
>>>
>> I can turn this argument on its head and say that unbridled capitalism
>> is "covetous" in that it seeks to enrich itself at the expense of the
>> just rewards of labor. Reasonably respecting your neighbor's property
>> does not include condoning usury and exploitation.
>>
>> Does "your neighbor's property" include property in slaves? For
>> centuries, these sorts of Old Testament arguments (as you are
>> enunciating above) were used to justify slavery.
>>
>> A social redistribution of wealth, based on the criteria of justice
>> and need, is not "covetous" but, on the contrary, follows the spirit
>> of Christ's teachings. After all, Christ boiled the commandments down
>> to two: to love God, and to love one's neighbor as oneself. Christ
>> actually didn't say a thing about respecting private property. He said
>> repeatedly that people should give up worldly things in order to
>> follow Him.

> Not at all. When one is forced to meet the need of his customers
> to meet his own needs, he is not coveting. He is serving.
> Think of the money he receives for serving as "certificates of
> appreciation". Everyone is forced to server each other. This is
> why freedom works so much better than Socialism. It is because
> one gets to see the rewards of their own labor. And it is
> self policing: no fasces needed. And when tempered with
> Christian ethics, the best system out there.
>
> "social redistribution of wealth" breaks another commandment:
> thou shalt not steel. Name one instance where Christ told
> anyone to steel (or any other form of extortion through the
> color of authority) to fund any good work. "redistribution"
> is not Christ's teaching. He teaches that you do good
> works, not take/steel from someone else to avoid doing good
> yourself. This is faith without works.

But people are not taking from each other. The government has the right
to impose taxes and use them to punish and overcome injustice (Romans 13).

If wages are such that working 40, 50, 60 hours a week is not sufficient
to keep a roof over one's head and put food on one's table (for one's
family as well), is that not a case of injustice that the government has
the responsibility to remedy? Of course they could also do that by
raising the minimum wage: when I first went to Australia, the minimum
wage for a 40-hour week was set at the amount that enabled one
wage-earner to provide housing, food, etc., for himself and a a wife and
two children. It continued this way for many years, no matter what the
"political complexion" of the Commonwealth (national) government.

Perce

[Todd]

On 06/03/2012 08:33 PM, Alexander Arnakis wrote:
> This was anti-capitalism before there was capitalism.

What do you mean? Capitalism existed since the first voluntary
exchange of good and services. Capitalism has been with us
well before Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) and Ibn Khaldūn.

By chance do you mean, when capitalism was first written about?

-T

[Alexander Arnakis]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:00:47 -0700, Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 06/03/2012 08:33 PM, Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>> This was anti-capitalism before there was capitalism.
>
>What do you mean? Capitalism existed since the first voluntary
>exchange of good and services. Capitalism has been with us

>well before Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) and Ibn Khald?n.

>
>By chance do you mean, when capitalism was first written about?
>

Modern capitalism was a product of the Industrial Revolution. Before
that, we had economic systems such as feudalism and merchantilism.
Look them up.

For example, the American Civil War was a conflict between capitalism
(the North) and a combination of feudalism and merchantilism (the
South). Capitalism is characterized by things such as mobility of
labor, money liquidity, and large investment in plant and equipment,
none of which existed in the slave economy of the deep South.

You could not have true capitalism in the pre-1860's serf system of
Russia, in which the peasants were tied to the land, and the Jews were
confined to the "Jewish Pale."

Capitalism, in this sense, is also inconsistent with Islam.

[Alexander Arnakis]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:13:15 -0700, Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>Not at all. When one is forced to meet the need of his customers
>to meet his own needs, he is not coveting. He is serving.
>Think of the money he receives for serving as "certificates of
>appreciation". Everyone is forced to server each other. This is
>why freedom works so much better than Socialism. It is because
>one gets to see the rewards of their own labor. And it is
>self policing: no fasces needed. And when tempered with
>Christian ethics, the best system out there.
>

Whoa. You are conflating political systems ("freedom" vs. "not
freedom") and economic systems ("socialism," "capitalism," and so on).
There are capitalist economic systems that are not politically free
(China), just as there are socialist economic systems that are
politically free (Sweden). You need to set up a Venn diagram to sort
out the areas of overlap.

Also, there are many varieties of socialism (Fabian socialism, utopian
socialism, "scientific" socialism, etc.). You seem to think that
socialism is always linked to state compulsion. Not true. In fact, in
the idealized vision of Marxian communism, the eventual goal is for
"the state to wither away." (Human nature being what it is, they never
got that far. But I digress.) Anyway, it's quite possible to have a
"voluntary" socialist system. The Shaker communities, Amana, Oneida,
and other utopian communities, were examples, as indeed were some
early (pre-Edict of Milan) Christian communities. And don't forget the
monasteries.

You are trying to force the "virtue of selfishness" into a Christian
mold. It won't work. Something like Ayn Rand's Objectivism is
theoretically coherent only if its underpinning is atheism. Her great
bugaboo was "altruism" -- which is the very essence of Christianity.

>"social redistribution of wealth" breaks another commandment:
>thou shalt not steel. Name one instance where Christ told
>anyone to steel (or any other form of extortion through the
>color of authority) to fund any good work. "redistribution"
>is not Christ's teaching. He teaches that you do good
>works, not take/steel from someone else to avoid doing good
>yourself. This is faith without works.
>

steel = steal?

OK, let's talk about "social redistribution of wealth" in Old
Testament temple Judaism (since you're so concerned about the
"commandments"). The Jews were required to bring animals for sacrifice
to the Temple. What do you think "burnt offerings" were? In effect,
the animals were slaughtered (in a Kosher way), roasted, and then the
meat was distributed to the poor. And why do you think there were
"moneychangers" in the Temple (for Christ to overthrow their tables)?
The fact is, people could bring money offerings in lieu of sacrificial
animals. This money would be used to buy food for the poor, or would
be distributed to them directly. This whole thing was a tax/welfare
system! (Cleverly set up in the guise of religious duties.) One reason
that the Jews were resentful of the Romans was that the Romans imposed
taxes *in addition* to the "taxes" already being paid to the Jewish
religious authorities.

[Todd]

Hi Perce,

I have some family business to take care of (just busy, nothing bad),
for the next couple of weeks, so I will not be able to respond
for a while. But I will, eventually. I do enjoy our dialogs.

-T

[Todd]

On 06/04/2012 08:19 PM, Alexander Arnakis wrote:
> Whoa. You are conflating political systems ("freedom" vs. "not
> freedom") and economic systems ("socialism," "capitalism," and so on).
> There are capitalist economic systems that are not politically free
> (China), just as there are socialist economic systems that are
> politically free (Sweden). You need to set up a Venn diagram to sort
> out the areas of overlap.

Good point. I was sloppy in my language. Things are best when
both political and economic freedom are respected.

>
> Also, there are many varieties of socialism (Fabian socialism, utopian
> socialism, "scientific" socialism, etc.). You seem to think that
> socialism is always linked to state compulsion. Not true. In fact, in
> the idealized vision of Marxian communism, the eventual goal is for
> "the state to wither away." (Human nature being what it is, they never
> got that far. But I digress.) Anyway, it's quite possible to have a
> "voluntary" socialist system. The Shaker communities, Amana, Oneida,
> and other utopian communities, were examples, as indeed were some
> early (pre-Edict of Milan) Christian communities. And don't forget the
> monasteries.

I have no problem whatsoever with voluntary associations.

Excellent analysis about being different types of Socialism.
The typically response I get is that every failed Socialist
tyranny was not real Socialism. The real one is some French or
German guy I never heard of who was persecuted by the not
real Socialists. And, that Socialism had not really been tried
yet.

-T

[Todd]

On 06/04/2012 07:24 PM, Alexander Arnakis wrote:
> Capitalism is characterized by things such as mobility of
> labor, money liquidity, and large investment in plant and equipment,

Okay, I get it. I have a much broader definition of Free Markets.
To me Free Markets existed back when the first tribesman exchanged
arrow heads with a neighbor tribesman for a fish.

And then again, I think that the "double balanced ledger" was the
greatest mathematical invention of our history, having affected
every aspect of humanity and continues to do so. It was responsible
for the Renaissance and the opening of vast Free Trade among nations.

Loved your analysis,

-T

[Alexander Arnakis]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 10:35:47 -0700, Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 06/04/2012 07:24 PM, Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>> Capitalism is characterized by things such as mobility of
>> labor, money liquidity, and large investment in plant and equipment,
>
>Okay, I get it. I have a much broader definition of Free Markets.
>To me Free Markets existed back when the first tribesman exchanged
>arrow heads with a neighbor tribesman for a fish.
>

But that's just the point. A free market presupposes a free ability to
contract (labor and capital mobility), and that really didn't exist
until the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. Up to that
point, there were restraints on trade, such as slavery, wealth being
tied to land, lack of a banking system and credit, etc.

It does no good for tribesmen to exchange arrowheads for fish, when
the chief can grab it all on an arbitrary basis. You have to develop a
system of commercial law before there can be a market. The Romans had
a well-developed system of law, but they also had slavery and feudal
estates. Certainly not a capitalist system.

[Todd]

Excellent points. I really want to continue the conversation, but I
am going to have to be off line (read only) for a few weeks.

Yours in Christ,
-T

[Todd]

On 06/05/2012 11:02 AM, Alexander Arnakis wrote:

Hi Alexander,

You make good points. I am defining the free market as the free
and voluntary exchange of goods and services between consenting
parties.

Back to my tribesman and the fish and the arrow head example.
As soon as one of the two parties decided to live off the
sweat of other peoples brows and pop the other party in the
head and takes the products and services -- in other words,
a non voluntary exchange -- you now have the first socialists.
And, the first slave masters, mercantilism, redistribution of
wealth, etc.. History is riddled with the failures of
folks trying to circumvent the free market. The worst,
body count wise, is Socialism. Our church suffered
dearly under the Soviet Socialist terror.

The effort in history to circumvent the free market has
always ended in disaster. Bear in mind that we Christians
are commanded not to covet our neighbors possessions.

Of interest, years ago, I was on the cooking group asking
about a recipe. I think it was for roast, but I do not
remember. What I do remember was a rather interesting,
may I say "gross", recipe which called the use of a
sardine of all things. When I asked the purpose, it
transpired that it was a French recipe. And that the
Nobles in France had some system of official monopolies
where exclusive rights were given over markets to individuals
with the royals getting a cut of the action (sound like
the mafia). The salt monopoly was participially odious,
so the (highly salted) sardine was used as a salt substitute
to get around the salt monopoly. (If Vassily is reading
this, I am sure he can fill in all the proper names and
details.) The free market does tend to restore itself
one way or another. Adam Smith made a big point of this.

Yours in Christ,
-T

[Todd]

On 06/04/2012 10:38 AM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

Hi Perce,

I am back. I am going to answer you in a new thread.

-T

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:12:45 -0400, Alexander Arnakis wrote:

> On Sun, 27 May 2012 15:36:18 -0700, Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>This happens when the body politic does not follow the commandments.
>>"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors possessions". In other words,
>>"Socialism" does this to a country. It is a lack of Orthodoxy that is
>>causing the problem.
>>
> Wow. I hardly know where to start.

I suppose one place to start would be to grasp the right end of the stick.

Capitalist advertising is almost wholly based on the premiss that you
should covet your neighbour's goods.

Socialism (some versions) is based on the gospel principle that you
should share your goods with your neighbour.




--
Steve Hayes http://khanya.wordpress.com

[Steve Hayes]

That wasn't just the Old Believers. Peter the Great took control of the
church by abolishing the patriarchate and replacing it with a synod that
he could control.

But the Bolsheviks agreed with his project, and tried very hard to
complete it.

Western modernity had two faces: individualism and collectivism.

Orthodox communitarianism wasn't really compatible with either. Some
Roman Catholics (like Dorothy Day) tried to introduced it to the West,
but only gained a very small following.

[Todd]

On 08/19/2012 12:09 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:12:45 -0400, Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 15:36:18 -0700, Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> This happens when the body politic does not follow the commandments.
>>> "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors possessions". In other words,
>>> "Socialism" does this to a country. It is a lack of Orthodoxy that is
>>> causing the problem.
>>>
>> Wow. I hardly know where to start.
>
> I suppose one place to start would be to grasp the right end of the stick.
>
> Capitalist advertising is almost wholly based on the premiss that you
> should covet your neighbour's goods.

Hi Steve,

Under Free Market Capitalism you are forced to meet the needs of
your customer to meet your own needs. I am a businessman myself.
I live it, breath it every day of my life. The "premiss [sic] that you
should covet your neighbour's [sic] goods" is "a big lie".

Free Market Capitalism is based on the principle that you must
serve/work for what you customer reward you for. It is the
free and open exchange of goods and services between consenting
parties.

>

> Socialism (some versions) is based on the gospel principle that you
> should share your goods with your neighbour.

There is *no* "gospel principle" in popping your neighbor over
the head to take his possessions to share with others. Would
you like me to re-quote Saint John Chrysostom on the subject?

"Redistribution of wealth" is forbidden: Thou shalt not steel;
thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's possession.

We, not someone who you pop over the head, are the ones that
are to take care of the helpless (not the lazy by the way).

I sometimes think from reading some of the Liberals/Socialists on
this group that they think we should "just" worship in church
and let the government do all the good works. That way
we are relieved of the responsibility. We don't have to
lift a finger. Sometimes I think they actually think that
having the government pop someone over the head on their behalf
actually is a good work.

I cordially invite you to join with me as part of the "Aspirational
Class", where we cheer and encourage other's successes.

Glory be to God!
-T

[Alexander Arnakis]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:20:06 -0700, Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> Under Free Market Capitalism you are forced to meet the needs of
>your customer to meet your own needs. I am a businessman myself.
>I live it, breath it every day of my life. The "premiss [sic] that you
>should covet your neighbour's [sic] goods" is "a big lie".
>
>Free Market Capitalism is based on the principle that you must
>serve/work for what you customer reward you for. It is the
>free and open exchange of goods and services between consenting
>parties.
>

But what are the customers' "needs"? As Orthodox monasticism shows, a
human being's true needs are quite modest: water, enough plain food to
keep body and soul together, some clothes, a sheltered place to sleep.

If all we were doing was satisfying true needs, the economy wouldn't
have progressed beyond the Middle Ages.

Capitalism has progressed through "created" needs, first by
technological advances (for example, in the Industrial Revolution),
and later by instilling "wants" in the population and then converting
those "wants" into "needs" by advertising and other forms of sales
promotion.

The epitome of this was the "planned obsolescence" in the auto
industry in the 1950's, when the socially accepted thing was to
replace your car every three years or so, just to "keep up with the
Joneses." (For myself, I'm just breaking in a new car after three
years. I keep them until they literally fall apart. But cars could be
made to last much longer than they currently do.)

Successful businesses may or not give their customers value for money.
As often as not, they succeed by *ripping off* their customers. I've
seen plenty of cases of this in my own life.

As a practical matter, there's no such thing as a perfect market. It
assumes an archetypical "economic man," devoid of emotion, and having
full knowledge of the goods for sale as well as their comparative
prices. (Imagine a "Mr. Spock" from "Star Trek.") In reality, people
make emotional purchasing decisions, and they *don't* have full
knowledge of either the goods or the market. I myself have made a lot
of money in the past by buying things in one market and selling them
in another, simply because the buyers/sellers did not have the
knowledge or means that I did. I don't consider this unethical; it's
just smart business.

But the idealized market that you describe is theoretical bunk.

>
>There is *no* "gospel principle" in popping your neighbor over
>the head to take his possessions to share with others. Would
>you like me to re-quote Saint John Chrysostom on the subject?
>
>"Redistribution of wealth" is forbidden: Thou shalt not steel;
>thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's possession.
>

(Please spell "steal" correctly. Persisting is this misspelling makes
you look like a yahoo.)

Taxation is not stealing. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.,
described it as "the price we pay for a civilized society." Nor did
Christ consider it stealing, when He said "render unto Caesar." The
Gospels are also replete with His teachings about helping our fellow
man.

Since taxation is not stealing, neither is the allocation of the tax
proceeds under a democratic procedure. Sometimes we vote to allocate
tax funds for defense, sometimes to fund the courts (I assume you
would have no objection to these), and other times to provide for the
welfare of our fellow citizens.

Be careful about quoting St. John Chrysostom. Do you want me to
re-quote his sermon "Against the Jews"? What he said against the Jews
would make modern people cringe.

>We, not someone who you pop over the head, are the ones that
>are to take care of the helpless (not the lazy by the way).
>

It just doesn't work that way. If you rely 100% on voluntary
contributions, the generous will pay and the miserly will not. So you
penalize the generous and reward the miserly. That's just not fair.

If you make deserving people rely on charity, you rob them of their
self-respect. If you make the benefit an "entitlement," based on their
past contributions to the system, you preserve their dignity.

Also, contributions raised by voluntary donations aren't anywhere near
adequate to cover all the legitimate social needs. They'e also
inefficient because there are no rational, objective, and enforceable
standards in determining how the benefits are allocated.

Ultimately, in this country, we vote for representives that decide
what taxes to levy and what expenditures to use them on. So, as a
community, we "take" from ourselves and "give" to ourselves. If you
think of the community as a person (and Orthodoxy has a strong
communitarian streak), then it like moving money from one of your
pockets to another. It's not possible to "steal" from yourself.

>I sometimes think from reading some of the Liberals/Socialists on
>this group that they think we should "just" worship in church
>and let the government do all the good works. That way
>we are relieved of the responsibility. We don't have to
>lift a finger. Sometimes I think they actually think that
>having the government pop someone over the head on their behalf
>actually is a good work.
>

I have nothing against giving charity; in fact I've been known to do
so myself. I'm also not silly enough to think that it can be enough.

>I cordially invite you to join with me as part of the "Aspirational
>Class", where we cheer and encourage other's successes.
>

This sounds a lot like the sin of hubris (pride) to me. That's
actually the worst of all sins, according to the Church. In other
traditions, it's also known as "bad karma." He who is up now, may be
down tomorrow. You can never go wrong with a sense of humility.

That atheist hag Ayn Rand is burning in Hell today. If she were alive
today, I'd be tempted to kill her and send her there.

[pyotr filipivich]

Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> on Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:20:06 -0700 typed
in alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:

>On 08/19/2012 12:09 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:12:45 -0400, Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 15:36:18 -0700, Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This happens when the body politic does not follow the commandments.
>>>> "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors possessions". In other words,
>>>> "Socialism" does this to a country. It is a lack of Orthodoxy that is
>>>> causing the problem.
>>>>
>>> Wow. I hardly know where to start.
>>
>> I suppose one place to start would be to grasp the right end of the stick.
>>
>> Capitalist advertising is almost wholly based on the premiss that you
>> should covet your neighbour's goods.
>
>Hi Steve,
>
> Under Free Market Capitalism you are forced to meet the needs of
>your customer to meet your own needs. I am a businessman myself.
>I live it, breath it every day of my life. The "premiss [sic] that you
>should covet your neighbour's [sic] goods" is "a big lie".
>
>Free Market Capitalism is based on the principle that you must
>serve/work for what you customer reward you for. It is the
>free and open exchange of goods and services between consenting
>parties.

That may be the theory. But unfortunately, "Capitalist
advertising" is based upon the idea of getting more people to buy your
stuff. As the saying goes - if you are not paying for it, you are not
the consumer, but the product. Same goes for Advertising. The people
(consumers) being targeted by the ad are not the customer, the
customers are the "increased sales" being sold to Ad Agency's real
customer - the manufacturer / seller. The folks who sign the checks.

>
>>
>> Socialism (some versions) is based on the gospel principle that you
>> should share your goods with your neighbour.
>
>There is *no* "gospel principle" in popping your neighbor over
>the head to take his possessions to share with others. Would
>you like me to re-quote Saint John Chrysostom on the subject?
>

>"Redistribution of wealth" is forbidden: Thou shalt not steal;

>thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's possession.

Christian Communalism (which is not Marxist) is more of a desired
ideal, than a practical reality. Yes, I know about the various
communal societies - begriming in Acts and continuing down to this
day. But the individual societies have their own history and issues.

>
>We, not someone who you pop over the head, are the ones that
>are to take care of the helpless (not the lazy by the way).
>
>I sometimes think from reading some of the Liberals/Socialists on
>this group that they think we should "just" worship in church
>and let the government do all the good works. That way
>we are relieved of the responsibility. We don't have to
>lift a finger. Sometimes I think they actually think that
>having the government pop someone over the head on their behalf
>actually is a good work.
>

It is not charity if you steal the money first.


tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Gott hilfen und wir leben.
(God helping and we live ..)

[Todd]

On 08/19/2012 12:09 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:

> Capitalist advertising is almost wholly based on the premiss that you
> should covet your neighbour's goods.

Steve,

I must apologize. I mistook this as "what Capitalism advertises",
in other words, prosperity, etc.. and not a comment on marketing.
I then went off on a screed. Please accept my apology.

[Todd]

On 08/20/2012 09:43 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> That may be the theory. But unfortunately, "Capitalist
> advertising" is based upon the idea of getting more people to buy your
> stuff. As the saying goes - if you are not paying for it, you are not
> the consumer, but the product. Same goes for Advertising. The people
> (consumers) being targeted by the ad are not the customer, the
> customers are the "increased sales" being sold to Ad Agency's real
> customer - the manufacturer / seller. The folks who sign the checks.

Advertisers (marketing) can be some pretty slimy folks at times. A
well trained consumer learns to ignore them and ask for others
experiences before purchasing anything. (If you are looking
for a new washer and/or dryer, go Speedqueen. They last forever
ad "just" work.)

Free Market Capitalism is the second best system. The best
is Free Market Capitalism tempered with Christian ethics.
(Whatsoever you who have others do unto you, do unto them.)

>It is not charity if you steal the money first.

Exactly. And "even if" you get a ton of people to agree
with you that you should steal.

Glory to God!
-T

[Todd]

On 08/19/2012 08:29 PM, Alexander Arnakis wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:20:06 -0700, Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Under Free Market Capitalism you are forced to meet the needs of
>> your customer to meet your own needs. I am a businessman myself.
>> I live it, breath it every day of my life. The "premiss [sic] that you
>> should covet your neighbour's [sic] goods" is "a big lie".
>>
>> Free Market Capitalism is based on the principle that you must
>> serve/work for what you customer reward you for. It is the
>> free and open exchange of goods and services between consenting
>> parties.
>>
> But what are the customers' "needs"? As Orthodox monasticism shows, a
> human being's true needs are quite modest: water, enough plain food to
> keep body and soul together, some clothes, a sheltered place to sleep.

The monastics do this for a specific purpose. Sorry, I need running
water and a flush toilet, even though the monastics don't.

Had a pipe under my house leak last month. The plumber that fixed it
got his own needs met by meeting my needs. This, even though monks
have to walk down a hill with a bucket for their water.

Your argument is kind of weak.

>
> If all we were doing was satisfying true needs, the economy wouldn't
> have progressed beyond the Middle Ages.

It is the human condition to want better for themselves and their
children. Your argument is kind of weak.

> Capitalism has progressed through "created" needs, first by
> technological advances (for example, in the Industrial Revolution),
> and later by instilling "wants" in the population and then converting
> those "wants" into "needs" by advertising and other forms of sales
> promotion.

You are suppose to ignore advertising.

> The epitome of this was the "planned obsolescence" in the auto
> industry in the 1950's, when the socially accepted thing was to
> replace your car every three years or so, just to "keep up with the
> Joneses." (For myself, I'm just breaking in a new car after three
> years. I keep them until they literally fall apart. But cars could be
> made to last much longer than they currently do.)

Crap that falls apart. The consumer is ultimately the one who
will decide this. Would you purchase a widget that lasted
one year for half the price as the widget that costs twice
as much and lasts four years? I would go with the four
year model. But, many others will not. The consumer will
eventually get what he demands.

There is an unfortunate rule out there: the joy over the
low price is remembered long after the anger over the poor
quality.

I too drive my cars till the wheels fall off. Then I sweep the backup
together and do it again.

Anyone know of a freezer that doesn't break every four years?
Seriously. Been looking. All the American plants have been
closed. Some the control panels and relays catch on fire!

>
> Successful businesses may or not give their customers value for money.
> As often as not, they succeed by *ripping off* their customers. I've
> seen plenty of cases of this in my own life.

Only temporarily. What goes around comes around. Eventually
the cheaters will get knocked off by someone. The system is
self policing.

By the way, in my 17 years in business, I have been stolen from
four or five times by consumers. In my experience, consumers
are far more likely to "rip off" the sellers that the other
way around. There are bad people in all walks of life.

>
> As a practical matter, there's no such thing as a perfect market.

Uh, have I ever said there was? The free market is just the
second best you are going to come up considering humans are
involved. (The best is the free market tempered with Christin
ethics.) Only God is perfect. If one does not realize this,
then they are doomed from the start.

> It
> assumes an archetypical "economic man," devoid of emotion, and having
> full knowledge of the goods for sale as well as their comparative
> prices. (Imagine a "Mr. Spock" from "Star Trek.") In reality, people
> make emotional purchasing decisions, and they *don't* have full
> knowledge of either the goods or the market.

A little of both. "Impulse" buying can slowly drain your pocket book.
You should see the research we go through when we buy new/replacement
products. And, yes, when I see that pretty organic heirloom tomato
at Raley's, I grab it right up. A bunch of them when they are on sale.
But, my family has to eat, and they would have eaten something else
if not that tomato, so the "impulse" is not always a bad thing.

> I myself have made a lot
> of money in the past by buying things in one market and selling them
> in another, simply because the buyers/sellers did not have the
> knowledge or means that I did. I don't consider this unethical; it's
> just smart business.

Matching up markets together is a legitimate endeavor. I see no
problem with this. The Christian business ethic goes like this:
would you change places with your customer? (Comes from Jesus own
teaching: whatsoever you would have others do unto to you, do
unto them.)

>
> But the idealized market that you describe is theoretical bunk.

Have I ever said I believe in an "idealized market"? When tempered
with Christian ethics, it is just the best think we humans can
come up with. If I believed the free market was "ideal", why
would I want the government to police the thing to make sure
folks don't cheat?

>>
>> There is *no* "gospel principle" in popping your neighbor over
>> the head to take his possessions to share with others. Would
>> you like me to re-quote Saint John Chrysostom on the subject?
>>
>> "Redistribution of wealth" is forbidden: Thou shalt not steel;
>> thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's possession.
>>
> (Please spell "steal" correctly. Persisting is this misspelling makes
> you look like a yahoo.)

Oh ya. I do continue to mix those two. Thank you. And, I am
a little bit of a "yahoo". More of a "nut" though.

>
> Taxation is not stealing. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.,
> described it as "the price we pay for a civilized society." Nor did
> Christ consider it stealing, when He said "render unto Caesar." The
> Gospels are also replete with His teachings about helping our fellow
> man.

Depending on what you do with it and how you go about it, taxation
can be stealing. Specifically, extortion through the color of
authority. For it not to be stealing/extortion is must be done
with the consent of the taxed and be only for essential services
that are legitimate to government: police, fire, military, courts,
etc.. And the Government must always be respectful of how it
obtains its financing. It is not by a free and voluntary exchange.

Now on the other hand, as beloved Saint John Chrysostom asks, "Should
we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between
rich and poor" and you say "yes", then you bet your sweet butt your
are stealing.

"render unto Caesar." meant to obey the law. Does not apply in this
conversation.

> Since taxation is not stealing,

Oh it sure can be!

> neither is the allocation of the tax
> proceeds under a democratic procedure. Sometimes we vote to allocate
> tax funds for defense, sometimes to fund the courts (I assume you
> would have no objection to these), and other times to provide for the
> welfare of our fellow citizens.

We can not morally use the tax system to steal from one party to
give to your friends. If it is wrong for you to do as an individual,
then it is still wrong no matter how many people you get to agree with
you.

>
> Be careful about quoting St. John Chrysostom. Do you want me to
> re-quote his sermon "Against the Jews"? What he said against the Jews
> would make modern people cringe.

Go for it. It is "Judaizers" by the way. This has been discussed
in detail on this group. Here is a good article for you to start
your research before posting:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/antisemitism.aspx

Let me explain about beloved Saint John Chrysostom and myself.
He has prayed for me. We have a "history". I am very, very
found of him.

And, I quote him as he is considered to be one of, if not "the",
most influential church father. Most Orthodox, perk up and
listen when they hear his words. He really, really knows
his stuff.

And, as to the Redistribution of Wealth, he is absolutely
correct. It causes moral harm.

And, being Orthodox yourself, you might as well learn to love
him as the rest of us have.

>
>> We, not someone who you pop over the head, are the ones that
>> are to take care of the helpless (not the lazy by the way).
>>
> It just doesn't work that way. If you rely 100% on voluntary
> contributions, the generous will pay and the miserly will not. So you
> penalize the generous and reward the miserly. That's just not fair.

When the government gets out of our pocket books, we are able
to do far grater charitable works. And it did work all those years
before the great society.

>
> If you make deserving people rely on charity, you rob them of their
> self-respect. If you make the benefit an "entitlement," based on their
> past contributions to the system, you preserve their dignity.

Call it what you will, it is still charity. Changing the wording
does not preserve anyone dignity.

>
> Also, contributions raised by voluntary donations aren't anywhere near
> adequate to cover all the legitimate social needs. They'e also
> inefficient because there are no rational, objective, and enforceable
> standards in determining how the benefits are allocated.

So, with a ~92% overhead the government does a better job? Oh come on.
And, bear in mind, when the government create an artificial demand,
folks come a running. There is no end to how much money the
government pig will consume.

For instance, the aid to families with dependent children. What
the democrats/government has done has created an artificial
demand for unwed mothers. And generation after generation see
it as legitimate to live this way. (Did you know that
insurance companies look for areas of unwed mothers to zone
for crime?) The democrats/government have substituted the
government as the father of the household. The results are
full prisons of young men who have no clue what it means to
be a man. And young women who repeat the cycle. This is
disgusting. And, guess who these folks vote for! This is
why I say that government charity is all about power and
empire. They don't give crap about the people they are
serving.

And, you are correct, the local protestant churches try not to give
anything to freeloaders. Well, except a real harsh lecture
about what it means to be a man. It is a good thing that the
government does not have its fingers in it. We have
~18% actual unemployment around these parts. Things are bad.

> Ultimately, in this country, we vote for representives that decide
> what taxes to levy and what expenditures to use them on.

Agreed. We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

> So, as a
> community, we "take" from ourselves and "give" to ourselves.

Don't agree. We are not a collective. The rights of the minority
must be respected. This is much of why our constitution is
written the way it is. Why do you think we allocate representative
and senator differently? Why do yo think we have an electoral
college?

Written on the side of Nazi coins: "Gemeinnutz geht vor
Eigennutz" ("The community comes before the individual").

How did that work out?

> If you
> think of the community as a person (and Orthodoxy has a strong
> communitarian streak),

I have only seen that from Leftists on this group.

I was attracted to the Orthodox church by its absolute,
uncompromising adherence to the Christian faith as it
was passed down by Jesus through the church. This
"liberation theology" thing I have only noticed on
this group and from my former roman catholic day.

> then it like moving money from one of your
> pockets to another. It's not possible to "steal" from yourself.

I don't agree. It is possible to steal from a minority that
can not defend itself.

>
>> I sometimes think from reading some of the Liberals/Socialists on
>> this group that they think we should "just" worship in church
>> and let the government do all the good works. That way
>> we are relieved of the responsibility. We don't have to
>> lift a finger. Sometimes I think they actually think that
>> having the government pop someone over the head on their behalf
>> actually is a good work.
>>
> I have nothing against giving charity; in fact I've been known to do
> so myself. I'm also not silly enough to think that it can be enough.

And when the government takes most of everything from you to
give to its friends ... Of course there will be less money.
And, the government does a horrible job of charity. They
mostly line their own pockets and attempt to create dependency
to further their own power and empire.

>> I cordially invite you to join with me as part of the "Aspirational
>> Class", where we cheer and encourage other's successes.
>>
> This sounds a lot like the sin of hubris (pride) to me. That's
> actually the worst of all sins, according to the Church. In other
> traditions, it's also known as "bad karma." He who is up now, may be
> down tomorrow. You can never go wrong with a sense of humility.

Where do you get that? What hubris is it to be happy for others who do
well? A rising tide floats all ships. Having aspirations that things
will get better is a good thing.

On the other hand, sitting around coveting others possessions and
figuring ways to steal them is a bad thing.

Think of it this way: I aspire to use the gifts that God gave me
to better by serving those around me and thereby serve my own needs.
What hubris? I am honoring God by using the skills he gave me.

> That atheist hag Ayn Rand is burning in Hell today. If she were alive
> today, I'd be tempted to kill her and send her there.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. I am not familiar with
Ayn Rand.

You know, you really do have to choose between your politics and your
religion when the two collide. Redistribution of Wealth causes moral
harm (St John C.). What absolute evil "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz"
has wreaked on humanity. Why would you want to repeat it?

[pyotr filipivich]

Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> on Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:32:08 -0700 typed
in alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:

>On 08/20/2012 09:43 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> That may be the theory. But unfortunately, "Capitalist
>> advertising" is based upon the idea of getting more people to buy your
>> stuff. As the saying goes - if you are not paying for it, you are not
>> the consumer, but the product. Same goes for Advertising. The people
>> (consumers) being targeted by the ad are not the customer, the
>> customers are the "increased sales" being sold to Ad Agency's real
>> customer - the manufacturer / seller. The folks who sign the checks.
>
>Advertisers (marketing) can be some pretty slimy folks at times.

Only to those of us who are being bought and sold. "If it works
... it is not stupid." P.T. Barnum said that nobody ever went broke
under estimating the credulity of the common people.

> A
>well trained consumer learns to ignore them and ask for others
>experiences before purchasing anything. (If you are looking
>for a new washer and/or dryer, go Speedqueen. They last forever
>ad "just" work.)
>
>Free Market Capitalism is the second best system. The best
>is Free Market Capitalism tempered with Christian ethics.
>(Whatsoever you who have others do unto you, do unto them.)

I'll modify that with the cliche that if both partys to the deal,
know the other guy got shafted, then it is a good deal. Somewhere in
Proverbs there is the one about "'Bad bad', says the buyer. who then
boasts of his purchase later."

>
>>It is not charity if you steal the money first.
>
>Exactly. And "even if" you get a ton of people to agree
>with you that you should steal.
>
>Glory to God!
>-T

[pyotr filipivich]

Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> on Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:28:30 -0700 typed
in alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox the following:
>

>> The epitome of this was the "planned obsolescence" in the auto
>> industry in the 1950's, when the socially accepted thing was to
>> replace your car every three years or so, just to "keep up with the
>> Joneses." (For myself, I'm just breaking in a new car after three
>> years. I keep them until they literally fall apart. But cars could be
>> made to last much longer than they currently do.)
>
>Crap that falls apart. The consumer is ultimately the one who
>will decide this. Would you purchase a widget that lasted
>one year for half the price as the widget that costs twice
>as much and lasts four years?

Depends on if I can afford to be cost effective. I've got two
bucks - do I but the cheapo 1.99 widget, knowing I'll have to replace
it in a year, or not buy the 2.50 widget which would last five years?

And sometimes, I just want one which will last "long enough".
Which reminds me, the shed I said I wanted to last at least five
years, -- it is getting towards time to think about where I want site
the shed for the next twenty.

> I would go with the four
>year model. But, many others will not. The consumer will
>eventually get what he demands.

Some times. Some times, they stop making what consumers want,
because the makers figure out a "new and improved" version.
I want a cell phone, not a rinky-dink communicator which does
badly a bunch of things I do not want to do. (Butt pictures anyone? I
have 460 plus on my phone)

Arggggh.


pyotr

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:20:06 -0700, Todd wrote:

> On 08/19/2012 12:09 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:12:45 -0400, Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 15:36:18 -0700, Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This happens when the body politic does not follow the commandments.
>>>> "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors possessions". In other words,
>>>> "Socialism" does this to a country. It is a lack of Orthodoxy that
>>>> is causing the problem.
>>>>
>>> Wow. I hardly know where to start.
>>
>> I suppose one place to start would be to grasp the right end of the
>> stick.
>>
>> Capitalist advertising is almost wholly based on the premiss that you
>> should covet your neighbour's goods.
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> Under Free Market Capitalism you are forced to meet the needs of
> your customer to meet your own needs. I am a businessman myself. I live
> it, breath it every day of my life. The "premiss [sic] that you should
> covet your neighbour's [sic] goods" is "a big lie".
>
> Free Market Capitalism is based on the principle that you must
> serve/work for what you customer reward you for. It is the free and
> open exchange of goods and services between consenting parties.

Well that's as may be.

But then in this "free market capitalism" there must be no advertisiing
as we know it.

>> Socialism (some versions) is based on the gospel principle that you
>> should share your goods with your neighbour.
>
> There is *no* "gospel principle" in popping your neighbor over the head
> to take his possessions to share with others. Would you like me to
> re-quote Saint John Chrysostom on the subject?

Just as there is no gospel principle that says you should remove your
neighbour's landmark.

>
> "Redistribution of wealth" is forbidden: Thou shalt not steel; thou
> shalt not covet thy neighbor's possession.
>
> We, not someone who you pop over the head, are the ones that are to take
> care of the helpless (not the lazy by the way).

What's for breakfast?

[Steve Hayes]

I must say I found it very difficult to understand what you were on
about.

I was simply pointing out that advertising encourages people to covet
their neighbours' goods. And sometimes that covetousness does lead people
to bop their neighbours over the head to take their goods.

No matter what economic system you have, covetousness will be a problem,
and you can't eliminate it by social engineering.

[Todd]

On 08/24/2012 10:13 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> What's for breakfast?

Fried organic Eggs from a local grower. $3.00
per dozen. All different shapes, sizes and colors.

[Todd]

On 08/24/2012 10:20 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:01:20 -0700, Todd wrote:
>
>> On 08/19/2012 12:09 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> Capitalist advertising is almost wholly based on the premiss that you
>>> should covet your neighbour's goods.
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> I must apologize. I mistook this as "what Capitalism advertises",
>> in other words, prosperity, etc.. and not a comment on marketing. I then
>> went off on a screed. Please accept my apology.
>>
>> Glory be to God!
>> -T
>
> I must say I found it very difficult to understand what you were on
> about.

I live with one foot in my mouth at all times. Unless I am changing
feet. It is a "husband" thing. Thank you for the pardon.

> I was simply pointing out that advertising encourages people to covet
> their neighbours' goods.

I am not sure "covet" is the right word in this case. "Advertisers"
are trying to talk you into asking them to build you an "additional"
item, not one someone else already has. But, then again, they
do try to make you jealous that someone else has their stuff and
you should have on too. So, maybe "covet" does apply.

Mostly, advertisers try to get you to buy stuff based on sex. And,
that is covered by other commandments. If you buy this, girls will
like you. (And we all know girls like guys who guzzle diet, oops,
light beer.)

> And sometimes that covetousness does lead people
> to bop their neighbours over the head to take their goods.
>
> No matter what economic system you have, covetousness will be a problem,
> and you can't eliminate it by social engineering.

Agreed. Covetousness can be a powerful temptation.

[Todd]

On 08/24/2012 11:33 AM, Todd wrote:
>> And sometimes that covetousness does lead people
>> to bop their neighbours over the head to take their goods.
>>
>> No matter what economic system you have, covetousness will be a problem,
>> and you can't eliminate it by social engineering.
>
> Agreed. Covetousness can be a powerful temptation.

And when you fashion whole economic/political systems around
it: worst case you get the Nazi's and Soviets' and the worst
tyrannies ever foist on mankind; best case you get Grease.

If others have more stuff than you, just be happy for them.
Leave them alone. No bopping allowed. It is best to live
simply anyway. Heaven is where your treasures should be stored.

[gco...@gmail.com]

The Greek Church begat islam and communism because they reject original sin.

Ochrafuxy is not Christian. They turned Athena into the Theotocus and
Apollo into Elijah. They admit to worshipping icons like pagans on Scamday of Ochrafuxy but the rest of the year they Trojan Horse us about "venerating". But they ignore Pslam 150 and remove all their church organs and choirs to be more like their muslims progeny. And they mock GOD by eating anti-kosher sea scavengers
when they pretend to fast. Real Christians don't eat anything until their breath smells.

On Sunday, May 27, 2012 4:48:22 PM UTC-4, RVG wrote:
> is also the shittiest ?

[gco...@gmail.com]

This is what they are all about: http://kharrapah.tripod.com/

[++]

it's the Christmas fast, Vasos, so cut it out!