Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting

volgadon

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1446

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by volgadon

  1. Miami Zombie

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I haven't read much about this news story because it makes my stomach turn. But in case someone else has, I just have one question: why did the other guy lie there for so long and take it?

    Because he was pummeled into submission by someone younger and stronger.

  2. Women shall not put on the Armor of a Soldier.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Confusing, is it not? Having been Muslim, at first I thought it was yet another tiresome Sunni/Shia feud, but these Alawaits are hated by both sides, and allied to the communists.

    None of this was new to me, there are Alawis in Israel and everyone knows the Asads aren't really Muslims. Alawis (and Druze) are a heretical offshoot of Ismaili Shiia, really more of a "gnostic" philosophy than a religion. They have lived as a separate people for centuries, fighting hard to remain themselves. Can't excuse the sickening barbarities of the Asad regime, but I do have a soft spot for Alawis. Apparently the Asads have been trying to get Alwais recognised as either Sunni or Shii, something the Alawis themselves aren't very keen on. They even say that sinful souls would be reborn as a Jew or Muslim. That is how much they don't care for either, though Asad's father was a supporter of the Jewish national idea in the 30s.

    Now, I wonder if a world war over Syria is more likely than one over Israel?

    Not enough oil. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I wasn't this cynical until NATO intervened in Libya but has stayed out of Syria.

    The pathetically sad thing is that there are Christians in Northern Syria that still speak Jesus Christ's language, Aramaic. I would love to hear their take on the true church.

    Suryoyo is not quite the same dialect, but I get what you are sayng.

  11. The Book of Abraham

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    I haven't really investigated theory number 2 but I don't agree with it.

    You should investigate the theory further. I've found a ton of material supporting it and I don't mean two or three isolated parallels, but a lot of examples both literary and archaeological which follow certain patterns.

  12. Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    It all comes down to our own indvidual questions.....

    Does heavenly father measure us as a society or individually?

    Both. He is especially concerned with how we relate to others within our society.

    Socialism is a theory but to equate it with "Law of consecration" is heinous because this (law of consecration) is a sacred law of morals, line upon line guidance, and heavenly fathers plan. Whereas, socialism was a theory derived from men to be understood by men without the true understanding and significance of our heavenly fathers plan.

    We aren't talking so much of the motive as of the method, or classification. Socilaism isn't a unified theory, socialism/communism/communalism are kinds of socio-economic theories.

  18. Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Additionally, socialism thrives on the "individual" doing everything for the "state" which will ultimately benefit the "community." That means that the "individual" must have complete dedication to the "state" and cannot be distracted from that goal. They cannot let morals, families, friends, etc get in the way. Religion is founded about morals, families, friends, faith, etc and a religious person is devoted to God and then the state comes afterwards. After all, how can an immoral government exist in the presence of a moral society?

    Totalitarianism isn't identical with socialism.

  21. Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    The sad thing is socialism can be perverted!!!

    The sad thing is, anything can be perverted.

    Hence, Masses and Mainstream. Socialism has no foundation for law, principles and morals but only exploitation.

    Socialism or Stalinism and the civil war it grew from?

    This is what Howard Fast said: “In Russia, we have socialism without democracy. We have socialism without trial by jury, habeas corpus or ... protection against the abuse of confession by torture. We have socialism without civil liberty ... We have socialism without public avenues of protest. We have socialism without equality for minorities. We have socialism without any right of free artistic creation. In so many words, we have socialism without morality.”

    I agree. Now here is some food for thought.

    This confusion of terminology has recently been illustrated by an article of Howard Fast, the well-known writer, who was once awarded the Stalin Prize. For a long time Fast supported what he called “socialism” in the Soviet Union, with his eyes shut. And then Khrushchev’s speech at the Twentieth Congress, and other revelations following that, opened Fast’s eyes, and he doesn’t like what he sees. That is to his credit. But he still calls it “socialism”. In an article in Masses and Mainstream he describes what he had found out about this peculiar “socialism” that had prevailed in the Soviet Union under Stalin and still prevails under Stalin’s successors.

    This is what Howard Fast said: “In Russia, we have socialism without democracy. We have socialism without trial by jury, habeas corpus or ... protection against the abuse of confession by torture. We have socialism without civil liberty ... We have socialism without public avenues of protest. We have socialism without equality for minorities. We have socialism without any right of free artistic creation. In so many words, we have socialism without morality.”

    These are the words of Howard Fast. I agree with everything he says there, except the preface he gives to all his qualifications—that we have “socialism” without this and that, we have “socialism” without any of the features that a socialist society was supposed to have in the conceptions of the movement before Stalinism. It is as though Fast has discovered different varieties of socialism. Like mushrooms. You go out and pick the right kind and you can cook a tasty dish. But if you gather up the kind commonly known as toadstools and call them mushrooms, you will poison yourself. Stalinist “socialism” is about as close to the real thing as a toadstool is to an edible mushroom.

    Now, of course, the Stalinists and their apologists have not created all the confusion in this country about the meaning of socialism, at least not directly. At every step for 30 years, the Stalinist work of befuddlement and demoralisation, of debasing words into their opposite meanings, has been supported by reciprocal action of the same kind by the ruling capitalists and their apologists. They have never failed to take the Stalinists at their word, and to point to the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union, with all of its horrors, and to say: “That is socialism. The American way of life is better.”

    It is these people who have given us, as their contribution to sowing confusion in the minds of people, the delightful definition of the capitalist sector of the globe, where the many toil in poverty for the benefit of the few, as “the free world”. And they describe the United States, where the workers have a right to vote every four years, if they don’t move around too much, but have no say about the control of the shop and the factory; where all the means of mass information and communication are monopolised by a few—they describe all that as the ideal democracy, for which the workers should gladly fight and die.

    Socialism and Democracy

    And you wonder why socialism seems to lead to the decline of religion.

    No, I don't wonder. Don't you possibly think you might be placing the cart before the horse? Socialism, with its desire to produce a compassionate and just society, is frequently very appealing to those disillusioned by the excesses of the religions surrounding them. They see those religions saying one thing and doing another. Do you want some sources on the religions in Russia of the early 20th century? Not a teribly pretty picture, sadly.

  23. Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I agree with you that there is an initial consecration and stewardship. After that initial distribution the person owns the land and he may do with it as he will. So yes the primary difference has to do with the initial distribution. The church however is not the owner so this differs quite a bit from most forms of communism where a central group owns the property.

    D&C 104:67-75 describes ongoing redistributions. As soon as any money is made by anyone it is placed in the common fund and members can only access it through a treasurer, after showing that they do need such-and-such an amount for such-and-such a purpose.

    There is also distribution of stores to the poor. I see it very much like the church welfare system today.

    The church welfare system is a faint echo of it.

    Of course a family of six would have more. However, in almost all cases communism doesn't consider giving a person more based on individual want.

    At the end of the day I see it as more of a modification of capitalism then of communism. But as long as the ideas are understood.

    Really? Even in the Soviet Union, which was far from reaching communism, to give just one example, the support issued varied according to the number of people in the family.