Is unregulated Capitalism bad?
- Details
- Created on Saturday, 04 February 2012 06:42
- Published on Saturday, 04 February 2012 06:46
- Written by John Draper
- Hits: 41
I agree with the Wall street activists that some people are paid excessive incomes and that many of these overpaid people have caused harm to millions. So should money be more tightly managed? Since capitalism requires a minimum of regulation and limits on interest and lending, should capitalism be outlawed? There are times in history where interest has been declared sinful and even today, Muslims try to conduct business without paying interest. The Catholic Church under Pope Clement V banned interest in 1311 (he called it a heresy - was that an infallible decree?). However, interest and banking is what has made big business possible and that in turn has made countries and cultures that allow it to be prosperous. It's one reason that Muslim countries are poorer. (More on this Why are Muslim countries poor and Sharia lending). But a dislike of bankers and money-lenders goes back many centuries - in ancient times, they were generally rich men who wanted to be even richer and they were accused of being heartless and unaccountable - they probably were. Money has always been linked to power and even without actual bribes, the rich can get favours and immunity.
Read more: Is unregulated Capitalism bad?
Facts versus beliefs and opinions
- Details
- Created on Thursday, 02 February 2012 06:39
- Published on Thursday, 02 February 2012 06:39
- Written by John Draper
- Hits: 72
Some things are facts and some are beliefs or opinions. Rocks are hard, air is transparent – the list of facts is long and most are obvious. But some people get them mixed up – just because you believe something or have an opinion about it, does not make it right. You may be right but you need to keep an open mind about whether it is factual or not. Unfortunately, many people seem to be not clear on the distinction between facts and beliefs. I have sometimes been told “You think you are always right” – but don’t we all? Why believe or think something that you know is wrong? But I suspect people are telling me that I am arrogant about it. I’m too forceful. If I said “rocks are hard”, they would not accuse me of that but when I say “There is no afterlife”, the kind ones say “we’ll find out one day” and the others say (or think to themselves) “you’re wrong – it’s just your opinion”. I don’t help by saying “No you’ll never find out – you’ll just be dead”.
Jesus the Jew
- Details
- Created on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 06:57
- Published on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 06:57
- Written by John Draper
- Hits: 113
It's not a secret or even disputed; Jesus was a Jew. But Christians think he was somehow different and not like other Jews. But the Bible makes it clear, he was brought up as a Jew. He was circumcised; taught in the Jewish temples; argued with Rabbis as is Jewish tradition; he talked about Jewish teachings and prophecies. He lived as a Jew and was as Jewish as it was possible to be. Like many other citizens of a country, he did not always agree with everything that the leaders said and his audiences were always Jews - he never left Israel (at least not as an adult). It is only recently that Jews have been accepted in Christian society - they have been ostracised and persecuted for many centuries. Jews were blamed for killing the founder of Christianity and not accepting Jesus as a saviour. But Jews returned the dislike. They were presumably not happy that parts of their religion were taken over by Christians - the old testament is essentially the Torah of Judaism. But just think about it: the foundation for Christianity is the Old Testament; that is, the foundation for Christianity is Judaism. And now Jews are fighting amongst themselves about this.
The Bible cannot be the basis for belief
- Details
- Created on Sunday, 29 January 2012 06:42
- Published on Sunday, 29 January 2012 06:42
- Written by John Draper
- Hits: 187
Most Christian debaters argue that they are rational and that their beliefs are rational. They usually start by assuming that the Bible is the inspired Word of God although Catholics supplement that with the concept that their Church and the Pope are guided by God. But let’s look at the Bible and see if it could be the basis for a set of beliefs. If the starting point for an argument is false, none of the results are proved. We have no external evidence that says that the bible is God’s word so we have to look at the bible itself. Christians like to think that it is a well written, well-put together volume. Parts of it are certainly poetic – especially some of the translations – and you’d think it would be consistent since when it was put together by Constantine; only books that agreed with the opinions of the bishops at Nicea were included. (The Bible is the Word of Men, not God.). But no, the facts and an analysis of the bible tell a different story.
Christianity's forgiveness of sins is inherently immoral
- Details
- Created on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 07:03
- Published on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 07:03
- Written by John Draper
- Hits: 568
The idea that God forgives your sins and that this is possible because Jesus died a horrible death is a core teaching of Christianity. Yet just think about what it means. We are being told that if we steal from Joe, then God forgives us for this sin. Joe is not consulted yet he is the one sinned against. It's as if the victim does not count. Christians say that all sins hurt God so his forgiveness is what counts. Joe won't send us to hell when we die but God can. So Joe's forgiveness does not matter to a Christian. The forgiveness of the victim does not matter! Let me give an example in human terms. It's as if Mike steals from Joe and the Law (not Joe) says, "Mike, we forgive you - although you are guilty, there will be no punishment or compensation to Joe the victim." Clearly no justice or fairness.
Read more: Christianity's forgiveness of sins is inherently immoral
Catholics and Protestants
- Details
- Created on Friday, 27 January 2012 06:35
- Published on Friday, 27 January 2012 06:35
- Written by John Draper
- Hits: 359
The Reformation was a major turning point in history and is the subject of a lot of study and books but the questions and ideas were real and still relevant today. By the 16th century, the Church had wandered away from the story in the bible. The bible was not what guided the masses (the peasants and nobility), they were guided by priests, bishops and the Pope. Worse, the clergy were focused on gathering money from their flock and were quite happy to link donations to salvation. Many current critics (e.g. rebel Bishop Spong) have accused the Churches of being in the control or power business and that was certainly true in the 16th century. But they were able to keep the masses under their thumb because information flowed very slowly – anyone from out of town who talked of the very real excesses and debauchery of the Pope and his entourage in Rome was not credible or was “managed” by the bishops. People like Martin Luther were thinkers and genuinely concerned about this – he visited Rome and saw what was happening for himself and he lived at a time when the printing press was starting to be used to distribute anything of interest. That meant that the words of one person could be read by thousands within days - communication was much easier and the Church gradually lost control. The people discovered they did not have to accept what they were told by the priests.
Atheism 2.0 - Religion for Atheists
- Details
- Created on Monday, 23 January 2012 07:03
- Published on Monday, 23 January 2012 07:03
- Written by John Draper
- Hits: 708
Alain de Botton argues that although there is certainly no god, religions are not entirely nonsense. If you put aside their dogma and stories about god, there is still some value left. In fact, one reason that religions are popular is because they cater to our needs. And it’s not a single aspect – they have multiple “virtues”. He suggests that atheists should stop being confrontational with religions – when something comes up that we disagree with, we should simply politely ignore it. Atheists and religious people should learn to live with each other. He says you don’t have to choose between a religion including a belief in a god on the one hand and the spiritual wasteland of CNN and Walmart on the other! You can just have the good parts of religion while keeping your beliefs. He calls that new way of thinking, Atheism 2.0.
