2ndRateMind

Because I think the world needs more cheques written, with the beneficaries either the absolutely poor, or such NGOs as are committed to relieving their plight. We might all say; 'I love people, and God's world', but unless we are prepared to sacrifice the extent of our personal bank balances by writing cheques, I am not entirely sure how deep that love is, and what use it is. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, just to keep this thread going, the Credit Suisse estimate of total world wealth is $241 trillion. The wikipedia estimate of Gross World Product is $107.5 trillion. An estimate of global charitable giving, in an age where some few are seriously rich, and a third of the world's population are absolutely poor, is $410 billion, or 0.004% of annual world production. We surely need more charity in the world. If charity is the product of love, we surely need more love, too. My question for the forum is: How do we arouse that love, given that such love would save the world temporally, and spiritually, too? Best wishes, 2RM.

Being the forum unbeliever, I thought it might be useful to inject a comment. I am a coffee drinker, tea drinker (under protest, in the afternoon with cucumber and/or tomato sandwiches), wine and beer lover, and a smoker. I don't often turn down the opportunity for a gin martini, or a dry, fino sherry, either. And I like my vices. They prevent me from becoming smug, complacent and judgmental. When I hear of some celebrity overdose by drugs, or see some addict on the street, begging, I just wonder if I am so much better. And in this way, my minor proclivities protect me from a worse one: that I might think myself so good, I must be better than all those who do not observe my arbitrary dietary laws. Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm inclined to agree (somewhat). I do think that humanity's understanding of 'God's Truth' has varied down the ages, and that (with good hope, a fair wind and a downhill slope) gradually, over historic time, we tend to converge on that truth. Meanwhile, though we might all have different theories of heaven, I cannot conceive of a heaven that is not both the vindication and the permanent residence of 'the pure love of Christ'. Best wishes, 2RM PS. Did you ever get to see the Bishop Micheal Curry's Sermon at Harry and Meghan's Wedding? 'Raw God', according to the Archbishop of Canterbury. I don't mind admitting, I wept throughout. But I'm a sentimental old thing, really. A pure stream of consciousness advocating love guarantees to hit me right where my tear-ducts are sensitive.

Thanks both, for your useful contributions. Connie, I can't help but notice the similarity between the scripture you quote from the Book of Mormon, and from Paul's letter to the Corinthians:* Best wishes, 2RM *1 Corinthians 13:4-7 KJV

I am not at all sure that the early church fathers distinguished between these two; love, and charity. But these days we do so distinguish. Love is a (sometimes fierce) sentimental attachment, charity is the gift of money or, more rarely, time and attention, to the needy. Assuming some distinction necessary; my own position would be that charity is the sacrifice love makes, and given that for sure the world's needs whatever sacrifices it can get, it must also need that motifying imperative that is love. On this I take directly from the Gospels:*** So, can you be saved if you do not love? Can you love if you do not gift charity? Collapsing the two, can you be saved if you do not gift whatever charity you can? Reversing the two, if you do not gift whatever charity you can, are you saved? Best wishes, 2RM. *1 Corinthians 13:13 KJV **1 Corinthians 13:13 NIV *** 1 John 4:7 - 8 KJV

OK. Some of these I have answered, but you have not found the answers sufficient. Some of these have been answered in the due course of the discussion, and do not require further elaboration by me. Some of these I have not answered, but absolutely intend to do so. Meanwhile, it's getting late, here, I haven't had supper yet, and so I'm going to attend to all that stuff, and probably not return here until tomorrow morning. Best wishes, and sweet dreams, 2RM

Give me a break, people. There are loads of you, and only one of me. So I am triaging as best I can. Top of the list are the deepest questions, which I try to answer as time and inclination permit. Next are matters of procedure, clarification, logic, attitude etc. These get answered as best they fit in. Bottom of the list is abuse. This won't get answered at all, unless I happen to think of a particularly pertinent rejoinder. Best wishes, 2RM.

Uh huh. Good question, Just_A_Guy I distinguish between objective morality, 'the Will of God', and the language around 'rights', which are sometimes genuinely all about trying to implement the moral, and sometimes just all about protecting the privileges and advantages of the 'the people who matter', the political, social and economic elites. When we all stop talking about 'my right to this, that and the other' and start talking in terms of rights which should be extended to others, then, perhaps, we will have begun to make substantial progress. Best wishes, 2RM.

Exactly. The only bases I can see by which oppressed minorities have ever received redress has been either violent revolution, or gradual social progress. Certainly, appeals to the divine provenance of universal human rights never seem to have done the trick. On the contrary, churches tend to be conservative institutions, and to their shame, have often supported an unjust status quo rather than equitable reform. Maybe that will all change, one day. I hope so. Best wishes, 2RM.

Vort, my dear friend, I truly think you are beginning to tend towards the passive aggressive! Welcome to the club! We'll make a debate out of this discussion yet! Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed. I am aware of that. That doesn't make me wrong and The Declaration of Independence right, in our differing philosophies on rights. Doubtless the founding fathers were wise men, but I have the advantage both of learning from them, and the developments of the last two centuries. Perhaps not. But if I have arguments justifying my position to proffer for your consideration, I would hope you would, at least, discuss them, if only with the intention of explaining to me why I am incorrect. Best wishes, 2RM.

As I have already pointed out, my position is that rights do not exist unless they are enshrined in law and enforced by the nation state. In the presence of such law and such enforcement, an individual 'oppressing' another individual clearly does not impact the existence of those rights. But in the absence of such law and such enforcement, it seems to me that no individual has rights, and one individual oppressing another individual does not make them suddenly appear. Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed so. So this little sub discussion has not been entirely useless, in that we now all understand each other a little better. As Winston Churchill once pointed out, Americans and Britons are two peoples divided by a common language. Best wishes, 2RM.

Ha ha! I guess they aren't then. But I'm happy you don't have machine guns universally available. So the issue seems to be not quite so clear cut as 'I have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms', but more a matter of which arms I have a right to keep and bear. Can we agree on that? Best wishes, 2RM

So, I'm sure you can guess where I am going with this. Given the different interpretations of the word 'assault weapon', and according to my simple description of the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons; 1) Are automatic weapons illegal for civilians? 2) Are semi-automatic weapons illegal for civilians? I'm genuinely interested to know. Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed you have. On the contrary, I am simply trying to clarify those things I am not clear about. Best wishes, 2RM.

Sorry to nit-pick, but he also said: while wikipedia said: So, it seems that our good friend Carborendum, and our (maybe not altogether reliable) source wikipedia, are using the same word to mean different things. Well, that's maybe not necessarily the fault of anyone. To my mind, the simple definition of an automatic weapon is that when you depress the trigger, and keep it depressed, bullets keep on coming out of the barrel. Can we agree on that, for the sake of argument? The simple definition of a semi-automatic weapon is that when you depress the trigger, you fire one, and only one, bullet. But the next round is loaded into the firing chamber for you without necessity for any other operator intervention. You then need to depress the trigger again, to fire that round. Are we similarly agreed on that? Best wishes, 2RM.

Then, pardon my ignorance, but why do you say assault weapons are illegal in the US, while wikipedia specifically says that 43 states have no assault weapons ban? Are they as confused as me? Best wishes, 2RM.

Yeah. I know that difference. In a previous life, I was (briefly) in the British army, during the cold-war era. We trained with the semi-automatic 7.62mm L1A1 SLR (self loading rifle), which was standard issue for most ranks, the 9mm Sterling SMG (sub machine gun), which tended to go to senior NCOs, the 9mm Browning Pistol, for officers and senior NCOs, the 7.62mm GPMG (general purpose machine gun), and various other fun things like the 84mm Carl Gustav Anti Tank Weapon, and the 66mm LAW (light anti tank weapon). And I seem to remember chucking a few grenades around, as well, of sundry types. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. Are military grade semi-automatic assault weapons legal then? It seems wikipedia thinks so, anyway: The majority of states, forty-three, have no assault weapons ban, although two, Minnesota and Virginia, have training and background check requirements for purchasers of assault weapons that are more stringent than those for ordinary firearms. While there are no statewide assault weapon bans in Colorado and Illinois, local bans exist in certain cities or counties in each of these states. In 2018, most Americans supported a ban on assault weapons, according to polls. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hooray! At last, a small degree of agreement! Now I'm going to spoil it! A disparity of equality of outcome leads inevitably to a disparity of equality of opportunity. To illustrate; let's say your father was a serial entrepreneur. He started from nothing, earned his first stake by working in fast food restaurants, invested it judiciously, and ended up, say, a real estate tycoon. Throughout your youth and education, you have the benefit of his wealth, and eventually graduate from Yale with a law degree. Then he dies, and leaves his entire $2 billion portfolio to you. Clearly, when he does, you have a considerable advantage over the rest of your contemporaries, working in fast food restaurants, to make their first stakes. Not much equality of opportunity, there. So my question to you is, at what point does this real advantage of outcome need be curtailed to make for a genuine equality of opportunity? Best wishes, 2RM.

unixknight, you are one of the least worst offenders. Best wishes, 2RM

OK. Here I go. 'Social injustice' is the absence of social justice. So what is 'social justice'? One could write books on this, and doubtless many have, with differing perspectives. One thing is pretty certain; it's an impossible goal, in this life at least, which is precisely why I believe there must be an afterlife; to give a just God the opportunity to right the wrongs of the world. But just because it's impossible, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive after it, and make such implementations as we can to make the world that bit more 'socially just'. And I would advocate that we consider three dimensions of humanity, and three dimensions of community, when we consider how to do this; all with the same goal, that none should be especially disadvantaged for just being who they are, unless they are adjudged criminal, and have privileges legally withdrawn after due process. The three dimensions of humanity would be: Physical, Mental, and Spiritual. The three dimensions of community would be: Political, Social, and Economic. So, from this broad approach we can derive principled targets such as universal suffrage, the eradication of absolute poverty, the complete end of slavery, the medical attempt to stop preventable disease, parity of esteem for physical and mental injuries, freedom of conscience (especially religious worship), and so on. I hope, unixknight, this is enough to give you some idea of where I am coming from, when I talk in terms of 'social justice'. Best wishes, 2RM

Seems to me the major problem this forum has with me is that it just does not appreciate being shaken out of it's folk-knowledge comfort zone. That's not meant to be an insult, by the way. Many religious people, of many persuasions, are exactly the same way. I do not rate you as any worse than any others. Best wishes, 2RM.