A question (take II)

[ecuworrier]

the lijne was locked ... so nobody could answer it but i liked the sentiment so here goes:

quoting jj ""I wonder if there is a 'correct' view of the ultimate religion or even denomination as AHB mentions in his first post.

I've been reading Christian Atheist - Belonging without believing by Brian Mountford (Vicar of St Mary the Great, Oxford)  in which he interviews and discusses the views of several types of churchgoers and non churchgoers in his own circle of friends and acquaintances.

Is it "correct" to finally decide late in life that democracy is better than capitalism? Or silence better than talk?""


relate it to my experience of church, and i think the question is quite straightforward:

people seem to have a tremendous investment in certainty...  and that includes the parochiality of their church watered down to a parochaility of a certain group of churches under one or other variation of a theme of 'a good church' substitute for 'my' church .. ie the place of 'my' investment... it's kind of hilarious and puzzling but it explains i believe the suspicion that many folks have about the church who's investment is the upkeep and maintanance of the status quo as in structure and organisation above and beyond a personal investigation of one's own journey and relationship with the ultimate source of faith... certaintys and ultimates are in different baskets methinjs... uncertainty invites expansion and development .. certainty invites standstill....  i like the tension of Jesus 'follow me' and the 'you can't go where i am going'... how confusing is that? well not at all the question posed by the human is in one place and the invitation from Jesus is completely coming from a different place altogether.... and earthly thoughts  is earthly thoughts and understanding Heaven is Heaven above worldly understandings.... parochiality is parochiality Heaven is unlimited potential of the unknown and thankfully not stoppable by our ... parochiality?


i think i am consciousness streaming or whatever it's called oh dear

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[AndrewF]

In answer to JJ - "Is it "correct" to finally decide late in life that democracy is better than capitalism? Or silence better than talk?" - no I don't think it is. I think it is better to talk than to try to exist in silence, and it is better to decide this sooner that later, at least as far as trying to live with your neighbour/nearst & dearest is concerned (i e it is not right to do so late in life but rather to do so early in life if possible). Having said that, better to do so late in life than not to do so at all... As to the question of politics, that is definitely open for debate! Which is a more Christian stand-point - democracy or capitalism - and are they mutually exclusive anyway? Can democracy actually exist without capitalism? Is capitalism intrisically wrong, or is it the old question of what you do with the money thus generated? Money is not, of itself, evil; rather it is the love of money which is evil.

[JJ]

Ah Andrew, they were merely examples of decisions that people might make later on in life - not actual topics for debate - they came out of thin air as I was responding to the question.

What I meant was - who decides what is a correct view on anything numinous or undefinable like faith, ethics, spirituality, child rearing, etc., etc.

Even physics is now a little uncertain.  Hence the Uncertainty Principle.

[ecuworrier]

[AndrewF]

I think we all have to decide for ourselves in thse questions JJ - for some (at one end of the spectrum) that will mean simply accepting the order as laid down by someone in authority, for others (at the other end of the spectrum) it will mean thinking it through for themselves in the light of their experience and knowledge - and, as the use uf the word spectrum implies(!), there is a continuous range between these two. I believe that most people will accept some things and think through others.

[JJ]

Aye. True. Myself I like to think some things through from first principles, others I expect I don't even know I'm mindlessly toeing the line!

Tonight a politician MP came to the door looking for my vote for one of his party in the local elections, and asked what, if anything, I thought or wanted and whether he could help.  I heard myself saying I wanted honesty in politics and that one little tick on my piece of paper would probably not make much difference to that, and then we went on to discuss democracy and he quoted Churchill saying that it's not a perfect system but it's better than any other.  When his companion wanted to leave me her card for after her (successful)  election so that I would have her email and number for her to help me with what I wanted I said that if there was anything I wanted I would probably try and do it myself.

In all, a jolly time was had by all, and we shook hands before they left for next door.

[ecuworrier]

oh dear i bet they enjoyed that call!...  sadly it just sounds like they were not bothered about the voter or the issues that bothered you .. and that's democracy .... so long as someone votes someone gets in to a cudos number or two......er representation and concern is an optional extra of democracy methinks....

it is possible to have a complete lack of honesty and integrity as culture on the part of the elected representatives whilst having complete honesty and integrity as culture on the part of the electorate ... it's all about values and ethos and taking to heart and living out or living out and embracing ethos and taking to heart .. we do pay them we even pay them to change the rules but we have only one sanction against them and that happens every few years as a general rule and we with our single vote don't have a lot of say... so we can change things around us or have a hand in that.... but don't let the politicians then tell you about 'localism' i mean  well.... how to make ideas dirty and not want us to take part!

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[AndrewF]

The Churchill quote is that "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" - which I have always liked... The biggest problem is in actualy achieving democracy!

[ecuworrier]

i like the idea that Churchill was a little more circumspect than the majority of his enthusiastic and opportunistic and spinning quoters! not sure to what extent Churchill would call himself a student of political systems or necessarily an expert..

but it's like those that say socialism or communism haven't really been given a run for their money .... what is it that you see in democracy that has not been implemented? i mean... majority rule by proxy is always gonna be a no-brainer innit?

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[JJ]

Educated democracy?  Free choice democracy? Unspun democracy? Non-Sun sez it democracy?

[AndrewF]

Ecu - Churchill was actually quite a serious historian and was rather an expert on political systems... The advantage of a democracy is that every sso often the electorate has the chance to kick the current bunch ot fwits into the long grass in exchange for a different lot of twits. The problem with all politics is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely; so it is better to have a check on that power. The trouble is that, once any bunch of well-intentioned peole get the power to do something, that power corrupts what they initially set out to do to into maintaining themselves in power because they know they can't achieve all they want yet so they need longer to do it, so they do things which are designed to keep themselves in power rather than being designed for the good of the country. Having said that, any system where you have the possibility of chucking out the current bunch must be better than on in which you have no chance of deciding who is in charge, since the former, while it may in effect be a temporary dictatorship, it is just that - temporary: whereas the latter can be a long-term dictatorship; and while a beneficiaal dictator is arguably the best form of government they are as rare as rocking-horse ****.

[ecuworrier]

Ecu - Churchill was actually quite a serious historian and was rather an expert on political systems... The advantage of a democracy is that every sso often the electorate has the chance to kick the current bunch ot fwits into the long grass in exchange for a different lot of twits. The problem with all politics is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely; so it is better to have a check on that power. The trouble is that, once any bunch of well-intentioned peole get the power to do something, that power corrupts what they initially set out to do to into maintaining themselves in power because they know they can't achieve all they want yet so they need longer to do it, so they do things which are designed to keep themselves in power rather than being designed for the good of the country. Having said that, any system where you have the possibility of chucking out the current bunch must be better than on in which you have no chance of deciding who is in charge, since the former, while it may in effect be a temporary dictatorship, it is just that - temporary: whereas the latter can be a long-term dictatorship; and while a beneficiaal dictator is arguably the best form of government they are as rare as rocking-horse ****.

i think you've argued the case against democracy very well indeed! i do think the dictators are more managable... cos one person is surely more vulnerable than a a whole system set up to protect and prove the interests of a particular special interest group....  i mean well like look what happened to Jesus... and He was the good guy! am i making any sense to myself here?

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,