What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 11 December 2003 - 08:08 AM
(unlike Ghandi and King) was not a political campaigner.
If he was, Pilot would have been willing to put him to death,
rather than try to avoid it. He was quoted as saying his kingdom is not of this world.
One thing though the authorities may not have been happy about
was that his followers had "all things in common" which has
often been claimed as communism. I would expect it could only have been some form of coop which made them self-sufficient
and prosperous. Baring in mind the occasion on which he drove the money-changers from the Temple (petty violence) exposing their hypercritical and fraudulent exploitation of the people
(which is often used as a historical incident re opposing the
modern fraudulent banking system by monetary reformers), the authorities may well have looked upon the movement as a social reform threat more than a religious reform threat. But that still
wouldnt make him a social reformer because nothing he said or did could interpreted as such.
Posted 11 December 2003 - 10:14 AM
Do you think that Jesus could be corruptive person? No.
And this is all about it . When person, or party or government or nation accepts bribery, subsequently collaborate with criminals.
Two needed to tango. We have to start our straighten efforts from our own yard.
Fish perish from the head, but to get to the head we might have to go by pyramid structure.
Posted 11 December 2003 - 06:26 PM
Woj I recon a thread could be grown on that statement, one could get into a substantial theological debate. However
the difference between Ghandi and King and the Nazarene
was that the latter changed hearts and the former sort to change systems.
So you express given the fact that society cant unite over religion
(and politics is just as fragmented) we should go for capturing the
cap-stone of the pyramid - overthrow the lion.
The short route is create an alternative money system because
the world is in bondage through debt. But any country that
steps out of the international financial system will find themselves at war, as Hitlers Germany, as the American Colonialists, or their leaders will be assacinated- numerous examples.
If you join the system as fifth coloumnists hoping to make a coup
you will either never get promoted because you arent corrupt enough or you will be converted and enjoy the spoils/rewards
and not want to share power. If you arent ruthless towards the top you will get buried and thus you will simply become the enemy instead if you do survive.
I rather suspect that Hitler and Stalin in their own way thought they could use the Lion and then turn and become independant
(nationalist) and too strong to be bought back into line. Neither
won and they both become paranoia wrecks in the end.
But the world still looks for a hero because the majority dont want to take any responsibility.
On another line: what happened to the first Russian socialist govt,
Dubcheks likewise etc. Same but different in Palestine and Irag,
as in many places today.
Monsters are put into power to prevent good people and good govt getting anywhere.
What do you suggest, we build a slavic pyramid and compete?
An eastern European commonwealth would help stabilize things.
Posted 11 December 2003 - 09:43 PM
Bible has a lot to say about the rich man including the one who
exploits his workers"
<I would suggest that if one looks closely it will be seen that Jesus
(unlike Ghandi and King) was not a political campaigner.
But that still
wouldnt make him a social reformer because nothing he said or did could interpreted as such. >
It depends how you look at it: If he challenged the lion, I would take it to mean that everybody should challenge him. Gandhi said something like, "Do what I do, not what I say," as he preached by example. It's highly unlikely though that some of those claiming to be Christians today--while launching wars--would be in any other place that in the Roman legions of the time if not in the mobs that betrayed Jesus...:confused:
Jesus have chosen to live in America?"
A couple of arguments...
"Rich men wrote the Bible
to control the masses!"
But if any man be ignorant,
let him be ignorant.
1 Corinthians 14:38
By and large, people are quite ignorant concerning God's word, the
Holy Bible. Yet interestingly enough, they all seem to have some
comment on this Bible that they've never read through one time. One
ignorant comment I've heard time and time again is that the Bible was
written by powerful men in order to control the masses. My friend, the
Bible has a lot to say about the rich man including the one who
exploits his workers--and you can best believe ain't no rich man going
to talk about himself like this--
James 5:1-6, Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries
that shall come upon you.
Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.
Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a
witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have
heaped treasure together for the last days.
Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields,
which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them
which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.
Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have
nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter.
And, of course, there's the famous quote:
" . . . it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"
THE RICH AND THE EYE OF THE NEEDLE
Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor
to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us
richly all things to enjoy. Let them do good, that they be rich in
good works, ready to give, willing to share, storing up for themselves
a good foundation for the time to come, that they may lay hold on
~ 1 Timothy 6:17-19
Posted 11 December 2003 - 10:41 PM
"tikkun" means in Hebrew to mend, repair and transform the world... And it's also the name of this magazine which is very much anti-lion. It's particularly important become these cries for change come from the most unexpected place;)--and it shows that we all gotta pull together on this one...
Toward a Democratic Commons
Jo Ellen Green Kaiser
Only 55 percent of American adults voted in the last presidential election. While that grim number exposes the current crisis our democracy faces, it doesn't explain it. Those of us who do not vote are not apathetic. We all want change. We want a world where the poor have enough to eat, where even the worst off have a place to call home, where we can breathe the air and drink the water. We want to be known and respected abroad as peace-makers, not warriors. We want to know our leaders hear our voices and act on our highest values.
We don't vote because there is a fundamental disconnect between what we want and what we get after each election. The political world does not map onto our private world. We have lost the place where that connection happens, a place activists increasingly call the commons. The commons is the world we all share, the civil society in which we interact with others to make meaning. In the articles that follow, we examine what we need to recreate a democratic commons, that time and place where politics once again will have meaning.
Jo Ellen Green Kaiser, Senior Editor and Associate Publisher
Posted 11 December 2003 - 11:08 PM
(and politics is just as fragmented) we should go for capturing the
cap-stone of the pyramid - overthrow the lion.>
I can see you have become quite accomplished lion hunters, but let me chip in:
We should first and foremost try to *tame the lion* by invitation. He would be mighty stupid not to take the offer as it can mean his own survival. Moreover he can live a comfortable life, being the only activity off-limits preying on the little animals. We can cite how good they--both the lions and the little animals--live in Northern Europe, etc. Nevertheless we should never overestimate his IQ and his capacity to control his rapacious appetite...
Secondly, we can try the approaches of nonviolence by putting pressure on him.
Then and only then we can say "anything goes" and we can speak about overthrowing him...
Posted 11 December 2003 - 11:21 PM
In other words, *it's the indifference of the little animals not the violence of the lions which dooms us*...
WHY PEOPLE OBEY
Clearly the question of why people obey is central to understanding the dynamics of political power. Sharp lists seven reasons:
Habit: In my opinion habit is the main reason people do not question the actions their "superiors" expect of them. Habitual obedience is embedded in all cultures. After all, isn't that what culture is
Posted 11 December 2003 - 11:31 PM
The Very Hungry Lion
The Very Hungy Lion is a children's folk tale, based on an East Indian fable. It tells the story of a very famished, and equally lazy lion named Singam, who longs to satisfy his growling appetite, but doesn't want to get off of his rump and hunt! Despite his royal stature as King of the Beasts, Singam is constantly outsmarted by his potential prey who use his lack of wit to their full advantage.
Posted 11 December 2003 - 11:47 PM
boses. Which area of Slavia will you now concede a military
base to the forces of instability (control by chaos)?
What can instability resist?
The rich man story is about the individual (heart) not social
(collective). The principle objective of the Nazarene was re God
not society and secondly about man and man: love God and love your fellow man as yourself is the fulfillment of the Law.
If it were possible for all then the social environment would
take care of it self, people wouldnt need big brother.
No where is there an intention to try and "convert" the world in
order to arrive at a perfect society. He came for HIS sheep no one elses. He wasnt a sheep stealer like the Lion. The Lion wants everyone "converted" wittingly or unwittingly.
Then there is the point in relation to crowds and he could draw a crowd. Social reformers need crowds and big ones. He showed
no interest in uses crowds, in fact he moved to higher ground
so the genuine were prepared to follow and the crowd thinned out. The rubbernecks and opportunists looking for something for nothing or just action didnt have the hunger to hear and learn
so they stayed in town.
Regards those who think they are doing God a favour going to war. Labels mean nothing. Remember the last shall be first
and the first last.
Posted 11 December 2003 - 11:48 PM
ANDROCLES AND THE LION
Long ago in a village in Rome there lived a shepherd, called Androcles. One day while walking through a forest he heard the roar of a lion. It sounded more like a cry of pain. Now Androcles was a brave man and he decided to approach the lion.
From a distance he saw the lion limping and groaning in pain. There was a thorn in his paw and from time to time the lion would let out a cry as he was in a lot of pain.
Wanting to do something for the helpless creature, Androcles walked towards the lion. The lion was very happy and raised his swollen paw towards the shepherd, as if to say
Posted 12 December 2003 - 12:24 AM
Did Jesus lay out Revolution?
It makes sense to me. Just that the Revolution--or whatever we call change--should not be led by a shepherd, but it must be owned by all the little animals...
Posted 12 December 2003 - 10:10 AM
needs to replace not compete with the adversary to survive.
Revelation means the roots-individual- are deep and people are prepared to die for it in adversity and they dont resire to destroy opposition.
The first does need leaders otherwise it is a mob and mobs are ruled by emotion not reason. Which is why they tend to be violent and ruthless with their opponents and seek to eliminate
those who were in power or in favour.
People inspired by a new meaning and hope get on with their own business and ignor the others not interested.
When Pilot gave the people a choice of who they should release
he advocated Jesus and the crowd rejected that and called for Barabus, a man of violence (criminal) instead of a man of peace. Possibly because Jesus wouldnt oppose the Romans (eqivalent to the British in India). The zealots were for violent revolution
Jesus was for spiritual revival.
That choice of rejection of peace/ messiah and choice of violence and the status-quo of spiritual decadence was related to the destruction of Jerusalem and the second Temple in AD70 after a siege so severe people started to eat their children. This is why Jesus wept over Jerusalem because he knew they would reject him and what the result would be.
Jesus wouldnt even support disobedience regarding the Roman tax.
The other reason Jesus didnt oppose the Romans as Ghandi the
British was because the Hebrew people (divided into the House of Israel and the House of Judah) were both previously banished into captivity for rejecting God. Jesus didnt come to defy God by trying to overthrow the sentence of punishment by opposing Rome, to revolt, but to give Judah an opportunity to overturn the capitivity/bondage by spiritual revival. The fact that the nation wasnt capable and Bible prophecy foretold he would be killed like
many other prophets wasnt to be an excuse to deny individuals,
who would take the message to the other members of Israel
referred to as the lost sheep of the house of Israel scattered
beyond Asia Minor (and via Paul to the gentiles). All foretold.
His challenge with authority was the spiritual leaders who corrupted the scripture meaning and held the people in bondage.
The advent of the printing press did the same to the Roman Catholic corruption of scriptures and bondage and the blasphemy
of selling indulgences so the Pope could build palaces.
Which brings us to Martin Luther. Reformers - revolutionaries,
are they same? Protestants (protesting Catholic doctrine) werent classified as revolutionaries.
There was no intent and it didnt happen that Jesus and his desciples encouraged people to picket the synagogues etc. They came apart and went on with their lives and held their own meetings, later to be persecuted by the religious establishment.
Regards so called christians like Mr Bush going to war, as in the earlier crusades many (Arab) christians were among those killed in the invasion. They were not the least interested in who got killed. Same today.
Would Jesus live in the US?
Why? He came as the messiah to his own, in the gifted land.
He came to die, so any thought of living out a life anywhere is
ignorance . That is why he opposed anyone fighting to prevent his capture. No death, no resurrection, no victory. See, nothing like Ghandi at all. Neither need each other to enhance what each did in their own time. They can stand on their own merits and I am sure if Ghandi saw Europeans disecting the Hindu writing to
found a popular notion about someone he would be disappointed.
Rich men wrote the Bible: is too obviously perposterous to entertain. The New Testament was written by the desciples and all except Timothy if I remember correctly met with the resurrected Jesus for which several had to die over. Who would die for a hoax? So Jesus is still in the picture and the game is not over.
Only one sacrificial death was required to break the curse/authority of the Lion. The next incounter will not be with a lamb, the Lion (Beast) of histroy will be in a showdown with the Lion of Judah. (pick your Lion)
A richmans folly is to "trust" in his riches not having got rich
and honestly even. The Biblical background is that he (individual
not social) will have to face the Judgement, God has the last say.
The brethren were exhorted to be patient/cautious because the rewards of the next world are greater which those who are not cautious about how/what they achieved in this life missed out on
the greater future. This is saying watch how you live not hey get your head bashed in protesting against an IMF international meeting.
The state and socialists, not to mention Barabas might think they are holier than God by taking it off him (richman), but if one believes in revolution to arrive at a certain philosophy of social behavior then they should stand on their own beliefs. Why corrupt other peoples beliefs to try and support it.
"If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
Well chosen DONQ.
A later rending was the word recognise replaced ignorance.
The context which is crucial (as with all the other points discused) is that Paul in his letter said that if anyone doubted what he said was true then they should recognise that he has been consistent with Jesus- who ever is consistent will be recognised accordingly and if not will not be recognised but ignored as a misleader/ignorant person.
So if anyone wants to intepret the scriptures they had better
not start from ignorance if they want to be recognised and the
easiest thing to show up ignorance inspite of good intentions is to fail the context and the consistency like religious cults do.
I dont recall anyone making any negative comments about Ghandi, so he can stand on his own merits.
On the other hand the opposite (controversy-denigration) is true regards Jesus although no man has done what he has done. If I remember rightly the Talmud claims he was the son of a prostitute and Roman soldier. Not suprising since he denounced the talmud as false teachings. He protested but his energy was mainly used to teach correctly as opposition to the talmud which like the Catholic traditions and practices originated in Babylon not the holyland. Biblically speaking Babylon represents rebellion (revolution) against God.
There is no grounds to show Jesus set out to radically change society (revolution), their basis of faith yes but that isnt social or political change. He knew from prophecy that the nation would reject him and put him to death to begin with besides the fact he was only after his own "sheep" not everyone.
Even Ghandi didnt set out to radically change Indian life/culture nor King the US way of life. I would prefer to call them liberators.
Eg liberating Iarqis from Hussein regime is one thing the radical
restructuring (revolution) of Iraq which is obviously the main goal there is different again.
Posted 12 December 2003 - 12:21 PM
You are right that the first step of the pyramid is the most weak.In the ancient times it was the only thing possible,but now we ca connect through the Net and elect on-line representative.I have seen in this forum that there are only a few people ,counted on one hand, to maintain this thread,even if there are hundred,maybe thousand registred.
Yes,we can replace mayors with "senior members" with leadership skills.That's absolutely necessary:leadership.GI Joe is right that different peoples have different agendas in their lifes.Nor all want to get rich ,not all are idealists ,BUT we can promote the right people for the progress of society in the right places.
As far for the pyramid ,"everything is a pyramid",there 's no need to be 6-cornered star or purple.Masonry is a very efficient society ,unfortunately for them ,not for common people.
Concerning the bulk of the system ,there are always at most 1000 representatives,some of them are senators,councelors,preator. There's lighter than the most representative systems today.
Concerning the conspiracy of the elected members to rotate themselves ,that's where the public power speaks.In the information age ,there's practically impossible to hold back information.It can be argued that a virtual democracy ,in which all members of society meet on a forum and debate laws ,is more appropriate .But again ,not all people can be farmers or doctors.If the current system will be someday transformed through the internet ,I see the day when all constituencies will be like the future Duma:one nationalist party,two communist parties,one extreme-rightwing party.That day should be averted.
Posted 12 December 2003 - 02:20 PM
I think that it is change for Russia in good direction.
Posted 12 December 2003 - 03:06 PM
The U.S. trade deficit climbed to $41.77 billion in October
Americans are misleading by Media. Should deceptive Media have free ride in free country ?
Posted 13 December 2003 - 08:49 AM
The formal structure: organisational tree: bureaucracy is not so
critical as the "fundamental connection" (Jo Kaiser, which DonQ
gave a ref. to). Not to say your work/input is not important, but that it isnt an area to get bogged down in, (meaning I wont debate it any further I made my point) because what ever the structure they either are there to serve of usurp power, so
the accountability and fundamental connection are more important.
Where democracies are not democracies at all is the "where we have lost the place where the connection takes place".
I believe this will always happen under "party" politics because
the representative represents the party not the electorate as they should.
There should be forums created in the public sector for the information to debate/circulate. But then that will be for many a place to water your horse but you cant make them go there let alone drink. - the weakness of democracy. Needs to be addressed by
proper education which no party political govt will be interested in.
Are you aware of the growing concerns about the electronic voting and the possibility to intercept the tally and modify it to
control elections, in the next US one?
I think the standard pyramid (as in military) type bureaucracy is
the best because it is straight line and designed to get the most efficient and direct means of producing results-public sector.
The bureaucrat should be accountable to the elected
representative who looks to the bureaucrat to produce the
prescribed outcomes (of policy) given that the bureaucrat has been employed for their technical/professional expertise.
The public (the boss) tells ( at the point of connection- if a democracy) the representative what the outcomes are to be. eg
free health for all school children, and the govt coordinate the policies/budget accordingly and then it is put to the experts to achieve it. The politician is the go between the two sets of experts to find a happy medium.
If bureaucrats cant perform they are replaced and if the representative cant perform or seeks to mislead the public then they are replaced likewise. Then democracy would be govt by the people for the people.
A favourite game by representatives to is turn the policy debate
on technical detail to win the public to accept what the politicians want not their bosses who pay their salaries and generous pensions etc. The politician are servants not experts. The bureaucrat is the expert on how to make something happen.
The electorate is the expert on what they want. Thats two out of three that are experts, and one a servant.
Naturally open debate (net) should include technical possiblities and costs as well as the policy/budget side so there is no collusion between the servant and the technical expert to control public expectations.
Heres something some might like to debate- the public have to get a licence to vote as they do to drive a motor vehicle. That might do something to motivate people to take responsibility.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users