Is poor good and rich bad?

Is poor good and rich bad?

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
02 Jun 11

Originally posted by rwingett
Mankind ceased being a part of the natural order of things around 10,000 years ago. Since then he has fashioned a decidedly unnatural relationship between himself and nature.
I dispute that there is any such thing as 'natural order'. Every living thing interacts with its environment. That interaction is necessarily a two way street. In some cases the environment is affected significantly - for example plants are responsible for the high oxygen content in our atmosphere. To label significant effects 'unnatural' is unwarranted.

Owner

Scoffer Mocker

Joined
27 Sep 06
Moves
9958
02 Jun 11
1 edit

Originally posted by rwingett
Of course money is abnormal. The commodification of all of nature is abnormal. All of human civilization, for that matter, is abnormal. Mankind, in his effort to tame the earth and refashion every element therein as a commodity for his personal use, is destroying it at an ever accelerating pace. The Fall, if anything, represents mankind's alienation from na ...[text shortened]... s adoption of a decidedly unnatural and pathological lifestyle as embodied by "civilization."


Of a truth rwingett.

But why does this condition exist? Why does everything have to be abnormal? Nature, or evolution, seems to tend toward equilibrium, but man, a product of nature, is at variance with everything in his path.

I see an irreconcilable conundrum.

Ming the Merciless

Royal Oak, MI

Joined
09 Sep 01
Moves
27626
02 Jun 11

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dispute that there is any such thing as 'natural order'. Every living thing interacts with its environment. That interaction is necessarily a two way street. In some cases the environment is affected significantly - for example plants are responsible for the high oxygen content in our atmosphere. To label significant effects 'unnatural' is unwarranted.
Premeditation is the key. Mankind is the only animal that consciously tries to alter the whole environment to suit his desires. This desire to dominate and control nature for his own ends has resulted in his profound estrangement from it. Instead of evolving with nature, he is steering it into oblivion.

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
02 Jun 11

Originally posted by rwingett
Premeditation is the key. Mankind is the only animal that consciously tries to alter the whole environment to suit his desires. This desire to dominate and control nature for his own ends has resulted in his profound estrangement from it. Instead of evolving with nature, he is steering it into oblivion.
Once again, I dispute that 'nature' is an entity or that man can be 'estranged' from it.
Nor are we 'steering it into oblivion'.

So why is 'premeditation' the key? Why is it 'unnatural' if you wipe out all the tigers through premeditation, but entirely 'natural' if you do it for food without really thinking about the consequences?

Owner

Scoffer Mocker

Joined
27 Sep 06
Moves
9958
02 Jun 11

Originally posted by rwingett
Premeditation is the key. Mankind is the only animal that consciously tries to alter the whole environment to suit his desires. This desire to dominate and control nature for his own ends has resulted in his profound estrangement from it. Instead of evolving with nature, he is steering it into oblivion.
Fascinating!

Too bad we don't agree on the root cause.

Kali

PenTesting

Joined
04 Apr 04
Moves
250572
02 Jun 11

Originally posted by KellyJay
I did address your points, I just disagree with what you are claiming is the
truth of the matter as you see it.
Kelly
Some 'relationship' you have with Christ.
Everytime someone quotes what Christ said you disagree.

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
157839
02 Jun 11

Originally posted by Rajk999
Some 'relationship' you have with Christ.
Everytime someone quotes what Christ said you disagree.
I give scripture and thoughtout reasons why I disagree, I do not just say
if you are rich you are sinful, loving money or even the things of this world
is not limited to the rich. The heart condition is what matters, those that
strive to be rich over the needs of the others do not have the love of God
in them.
Kelly

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
157839
02 Jun 11

Originally posted by rwingett
You obviously fail to comprehend what I'm saying.

Mankind ceased being a part of the natural order of things around 10,000 years ago. Since then he has fashioned a decidedly unnatural relationship between himself and nature. Homo Habilis first appeared around 2 million years ago. Homo Sapiens have been around for some 250,000 years. For the vast majorit ...[text shortened]... evered any healthy, sustainable relationship between himself and the natural order of things.
Really, you think we are abnormal, apart from the rest of nature, man is sort of
different than the rest of life? I know why Christians think that, why do you,
because as near as I can tell we are still just doing what we have always done,
we are just better at it now.
Kelly

Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
157839
02 Jun 11

Originally posted by rwingett
Charity is only necessary in a social system that is inherently unjust. And charitable giving may have the paradoxical effect of prolonging unjust social relations by blunting their worst excesses and making them appear more tolerable. Far better to alter those unjust social relations and thereby make charity unnecessary. Make no mistake, there will be no charity in the kingdom.
In your kingdom maybe.
Kelly

T

Joined
15 Oct 06
Moves
10115
02 Jun 11
1 edit

Originally posted by KellyJay
I did address your points, I just disagree with what you are claiming is the
truth of the matter as you see it.
Kelly
Once again you've avoided the salient points/questions of my post. No matter how painstakingly detailed the points are or how pointed the questions, you avoid them. Do you think there is any intellectually honesty in making an extremely vague (and false) claim to very specific points as you have here? It's yet another example of avoidance.

Evidently the truth so scares you that it renders you incapable of discussing this matter in an intellectually and forthright manner. If you had any integrity at all, you would have at least attempted to do so.

T

Joined
15 Oct 06
Moves
10115
02 Jun 11

Originally posted by KellyJay
I give scripture and thoughtout reasons why I disagree, I do not just say
if you are rich you are sinful, loving money or even the things of this world
is not limited to the rich. The heart condition is what matters, those that
strive to be rich over the needs of the others do not have the love of God
in them.
Kelly
I give scripture and thoughtout reasons why I disagree...

Scripture? What scripture? Please provide each verse that you've specifically cited thus far to back up your points.

Kali

PenTesting

Joined
04 Apr 04
Moves
250572
02 Jun 11

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I give scripture and thoughtout reasons why I disagree...

Scripture? What scripture? Please provide each verse that you've specifically cited thus far to back up your points.[/b]
LOL .. this KJ guy is a real piece of work.

T

Joined
15 Oct 06
Moves
10115
02 Jun 11
1 edit

Originally posted by Rajk999
LOL .. this KJ guy is a real piece of work.
Not sure what to make of him. Sometimes I think he just has real difficulty in expressing his position, but there are so many contradictions across his posts that it seems that his position is fundamentally incoherent. From what I can tell, he has too much pride to admit it, so he resorts to avoidance and making false claims.

Ming the Merciless

Royal Oak, MI

Joined
09 Sep 01
Moves
27626
02 Jun 11

Originally posted by twhitehead
Once again, I dispute that 'nature' is an entity or that man can be 'estranged' from it.
Nor are we 'steering it into oblivion'.

So why is 'premeditation' the key? Why is it 'unnatural' if you wipe out all the tigers through premeditation, but entirely 'natural' if you do it for food without really thinking about the consequences?
Creatures which adapt to their environment are natural. Creatures which adapt their entire environment to themselves are unnatural. Or, rather, they have fashioned an entirely unnatural environment for themselves.

Ming the Merciless

Royal Oak, MI

Joined
09 Sep 01
Moves
27626
02 Jun 11

Originally posted by josephw
Originally posted by rwingett
Of course money is abnormal. The commodification of all of nature is abnormal. All of human civilization, for that matter, is abnormal. Mankind, in his effort to tame the earth and refashion every element therein as a commodity for his personal use, is destroying it at an ever accelerating pace. The Fall, if anything, represen ...[text shortened]... of nature, is at variance with everything in his path.

I see an irreconcilable conundrum.
You want to believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with mankind, but that simply isn't so. For the vast majority of mankind's existence, he got along just fine. All of the social evils which currently afflict mankind are not a result of his being fundamentally flawed, but, rather, are the result of his being placed into an excessively unnatural and pathological environment. Animals, when removed from their natural environment and placed into an alien one, will exhibit an increased incidence of pathological behavior. That's why modern zoos try to make more 'natural' surrounding for them. The same is true for human behavior. When placed into congested cities, working stultifying jobs, as mere cogs in a dehumanizing market economy over which they have no control, it is small wonder that a great many of them go off the rails.