The God solution

[zeemike]

I will suggest to you that there is a solution to most of the world problems that can factually be said to come from God, if you believe in him, and if you don’t then it makes sense to do it, if you are truly one that wants a better world….and I assume most here do.

It is something that both religious and non religious can agree on but has the added benefit of authority from God for those that do believe…and it is simple and contained in the Ten Commandments.
It is the commandment “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy”
And for those not familiar with this commandment it is the only one of the ten that is expanded on in such great detail, and contrary to common belief has nothing to do with going to church or worshiping God at all….the basic premise of this commandment is this:

1) Every man and beast of burden must have a day of rest every 7 days.
2) Every 7 years the land must have a rest where nothing can be taken from it in that year.
3) And every 7X7 years of the 50th year all debt was forgiven and (farm) property returned to it’s owner.
This was called the Jubilee year…..there is no controversy about this commandment that I know of that would deny these three things are the objective.

And so the non-religious question to ask is; is there any value in this to us, as a nation and a world, or not?
So let us imagine that the world were to adopt this commandment….an the leaders of the world all got together and past a law….and declared a Jubilee year where all debts were forgiven and all farm land would be returned to people….and furthermore declared that in the 7th year all farm land be let to rest and nothing could be taken from that land in that year.

So my question is this….How would that effect you if you suddenly had no debt at all and a piece of land?
And your only restrictions would be that you had to let that land lie fallow every 7 years. And you could not work your animals or people more than 6 days in a row.

[Iggo]

1. Oh.Brother.

Atheists can't keep anything holy.

Next...

[zeemike]

2. Of course they can

Do you understand what holy is?

[Iggo]

39. Do you understand what an atheist is?

[zeemike]

44. Yes I do..

[Iggo]

47. Cool, then.

Have a nice day.

[laconicsax]

3. Even if there's value in it. It came from Bronze-age pastoralists.

Not some invisible magic man in the sky.

[zeemike]

5. So what? Does it matter if it works?

That is the whole point...you do what works.

[laconicsax]

8. You say it came from a supernatural source. It most certainly did not.

Horticulturists have used this technique all around the world for centuries if not millenia. Your premise of this being some sort of "God"-inspired rule is crap. 

[zeemike]

13. Well it is clearly defined and expounded on in the Bible.

The bible is believed by Jews and Christin....so for them it is not crap...but could be used to persuade them to social justice.
We then only have to persuade the atheist that it is no big deal that it is in the bible and should not be rejected on those flimsy grounds

[laconicsax]

21. I'm not sure where to begin.

Let's start here:

The bible is believed by Jews and Christin[sic]....so for them it is not crap...but could be used to persuade them to social justice.

You're assuming that all Jews and all Christians regard the Bible equally. This is of course false.

We then only have to persuade the atheist that it is no big deal that it is in the bible and should not be rejected on those flimsy grounds

So in your estimation, the world has three groups: Jewish, Christian, and atheist. I invite you to figure out what's wrong there on your own.

Either way, you're dodging the issue. You call this "The God Solution" because it's in the Bible. This didn't come from the Abrahamic god, or any other god.

[zeemike]

24. Well I don't understand your point.

Are you saying that Jews and christians do not recognize the ten commandments?
You do know that the Jews call there seventh day the Sabbath because of this commandment don't you?
And you do know that many christians want the ten commandments posted in the court house wall?
They may disagree on a lot of things but the ten commandments is not one of them.

And no I am not dividing the world into three groups....there are many religions and ways of life....but only these three groups would find this objectionable...Budist, would have no problem with it....it does not conflict with there beliefs and in many ways complement it.

[laconicsax]

31. You're suggesting that everyone follow a specific religious doctrine!

The arrogance of your position is astounding. You say, "idea X is in the Bible, therefore we should all follow idea X because it must be a good idea." My original comment was about your false attribution of the idea to the savage desert god. I see now that you don't understand that issue and rather than waste my time trying to educate you about the history of your holy book, I'll just move on to the fact that it's a lousy idea.

Ignoring the fact that the reason for the sabbath rest is a literal interpretation of a fairy tale, expanding it beyond taking a single day off flat out doesn't work when you try to apply it to an agricultural society. It works fine for horticulturists who keep a field rotation and it works fine for hunter-gatherer societies. Clearly you didn't think this idea through. What are we supposed to eat during this year of no crops? How are creditors supposed to recoup their investments if every seventh year, they erase all debts? Where is the land for everyone supposed to come from? The average population density of the United States is 81 people/square mile and that includes all available land, arable or not. If you take out the non-arable land, you have a significantly higher density.

Just accept that your theocratic idea is a dud and move on.

Additionally, when you say that Jews and Christians recognize the Ten Commandments, you're grossly simplifying the situation. Both groups recognize their existence but don't necessarily follow them en masse. Not all of them take them as anything more than a quaint part of their religious beliefs. I hope you realize that just because it's in a holy book doesn't mean that all adherents of a faith follow it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with "but only these three groups would find this objectionable." Did you accidentally type the opposite of your original premise or are you now saying that only Jews, Christians, and atheists might take issue with following a specific religious doctrine?

on edit: delete a math error

[zeemike]

41. What a reactionary bunch of crap

this reminds me of something I would hear on a right wing site.
The arrogance of my posting? My theocratic ideas?...all straw men constructed in the same manner as if we were talking about politics and you were a right winger....
You don't want to seriously talk about ideas you want to attack your enemies who believe in fairy tails in your opinion.
I get this shit every time I try posting here in this forum....it is not religious where people discuss religion and spirituality it seems to exist so that non believers can heap their disdain for the believers.
Sorry I am interested in serious discussion not a flame war.

[laconicsax]

50. Let's review:

You suggesting a nutty idea about adopting Jewish Sabbath law as a secular law is just as theocratic as Fred Phelps suggesting his nutty idea about executing homosexuals in accordance with Leviticus 18. It's far less vile, but still similar in mentality

That mentality is that because an idea can be found in your holy book, which I still maintain you don't know too well (or at least well enough to understand that Exodus 20:11 explicitly states that the reason for the Sabbath law is a literal interpretation of Genesis), then it's good enough to copy and paste into secular law without thinking about it. The arrogance enters when you start announcing how this is a good idea because it's in your holy book, as if that actually mattered to anyone outside your religion (or some people in your religion).

I'm sorry you can't keep up with the discussion without having to start flailing about and calling direct responses "straw men" in a manner that clearly shows that you don't understand what the term means.

I'm also sorry if you take issue with my labeling Genesis 1 a fairy tale. Do you view it more as history?

You didn't post this in R/T, you posted it in GD and it got moved here. You can kick and scream all you like about how adopting religious law as secular law has nothing to do with religion, but as with claiming that the idea conclusively came from your god, simply insisting it doesn't make it true.

The sheer lack of correct spelling and grammar in you OP and subsequent responses suggests that you aren't interested in serious discussion. If you can't be bothered to take the time to make sure that you at least spelled "Genesis," "Israel," or "Christian" correctly, and you can't take the time to figure out whether you're arguing for or against your own idea, then I sincerely doubt that you're interested in taking the time to engage in a substantive discussion.

As you neglected to do so already, feel free to respond to the actual content my previous post in this subthread.

[zeemike]

60. Well for what it is worth....this is not my idea.

I got this from a jewish rabbi some 30 years ago....it is nothing new.
And I never suggested the institution of any jewish law from the bible....dispite what you may think or claim for me.
And let me say it clearly as I can....the ten commandments is NOT Jewish law....But Jewish law conformed to the commandments just as our law conforms to the constitution.
And just as we have a constitution that says, we the people, and for the common good, our laws have not always conformed to that idea now have they.
But you want to dump it all in a bag together and say if you talk about one you talk about all....that is intellectual dishonest an only squelches any kind of thought full debate.
But you can label the bible anyway you want..makes no difference to me what you believe. But I don''t appreciate coming here to have a serious debate about this single issue to be ridiculed and have all kinds of things affixed to my point that I never intended to make.

If you would have asked simple questions you would have known that and would have found out who I am and what I was talking about.

[conscious evolution]

74. the ten commandments is NOT Jewish law

Really?
OK.

Anyone have a link to a facepalm image?

[zeemike]

79. Well it is not.

Andy more than out constitution is our law.
For instance, where in the commandments does it prohibit eating shell fish or pork?...that is Jewish law....but what the commandments did was prohibit a jewish law that made people work 7 days a week.

[laconicsax]

90. Ok, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

For starters the Constitution IS the law in the United States. Feel free to take a high school civics class for confirmation of that. I'm not sure who "Andy" is, or if this "out" constitution you mention is the US Constitution though.

Next, you clearly have no idea what the Bible says.

The Ten Commandments listed in Exodus 20 are the first ten of 613 laws. Did you ever actually read Exodus and wonder why it keeps going with more commandments after those first ten?

The prohibition on shell fish and pork come from some of the subsequent commandments Leviticus 11 lay out those guidelines.

Leviticus 11:
¹And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, ²Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. ³Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. ⁴Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. ⁵And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. ⁶And the hare, because he cheweth the cud , but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. ⁷And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. ⁸Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

⁹These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. ¹⁰And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: ¹¹They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. ¹²Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

This passage is reinforced in Deuteronomy 14

Where is your reference for this Jewish law that made people work 7 days a week? Since Jewish law is the 613 mitzvot, the fifth of which is keeping the Sabbath, I suspect that it doesn't exist and once again, you're just flaunting your ignorance of the subject.

[zeemike]

96. OK then where is the law against smoking pot in the Constitution?

Not there....because the constitution was never intended to be all the law but a guideline for what laws could and could not be made....that is why it is called a constitution not a law....laws are constructed around this basic set of ideals and requirements....but that does not mean it is not technically law itself.
The same is true for the commandments....the laws of Israel were constructed around the framework of the commandments.

[laconicsax]

97. Read Article VI, Clause 2.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Notice the part where it says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." This is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes the Constitution as law.

The prohibition of marijuana is part of a federal law made pursuant to the Constitution. Consequently, the Supremacy Clause says that this law is the "supreme Law of the Land."

Thanks for the red herring, by the way. It's nice to know that you really don't understand high-school level civics.

[zeemike]

101. But the writers of the constitution did not give us that law.

It created the framework for the laws to be enacted and enforced....that is my point.
Just as the Jews saw it fit to forbid the eating of shell fish as long as it did not violate the ten commandments...but it was not the author of the commandments that forbade it.

[laconicsax]

113. The Ten Commandments are part of the SAME SET OF LAWS as the other 603!

I don't understand why this is so difficult for you.

There are 613 commandments in Jewish Law starting with "I am the Lord God who led you out of Egypt" in Exodus 20. The "Ten Commandments" that you think are separate are simply the first ten in a list of 613. They aren't some 'framework' for the rest, they're just first on the list. Your claim is equivalent to claiming that the Bill of Rights created a framework for the 11th-27th Amendments. The reality, of course, is that all 27 Amendments are coequal laws; the Bill of Rights is just the first 10 in a list of 27.

Read what it says immediately following the first ten laws in Exodus 20 (we'll say they're numbered 1-10):

¹⁸And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. ¹⁹And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. ²⁰And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. ²¹And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

²²And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.

     (11)²³Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.

     (12)²⁴An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

     (13)²⁵And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

     (14)²⁶Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

That's odd--it's almost like Exodus 20 has God dictating a list of 14 laws. If you continue on to Exodus 21, you'll see more laws. That's because your precious ten commandments are simply the first in a very long list (613 total) rather than a standalone set on which the rest depend.

There is a standalone set of ten that are actually called "The Ten Commandments." Do you know where you can find them? I'll give you a hint, it isn't in Exodus 20. Stumped? Ok, here's the answer: They're in Exodus 34 (you know, when Moses goes back up the mountain after throwing a fit.

⁸And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped. ⁹And he said, If now I have found grace in thy sight, O LORD, let my LORD, I pray thee, go among us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine inheritance.

¹⁰And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee. ¹¹Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the anaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. ¹²Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: ¹³But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

     (1)¹⁴For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: ¹⁵Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; ¹⁶And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

     (2)¹⁷Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

     (3)¹⁸The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.

     (4)¹⁹All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. 20But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

     (5)²¹Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.

     (6)²²And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

     (7)²³Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.²⁴For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.

     (8)²⁵Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

     (9)²⁶The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.

     (10)Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

²⁷And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. ²⁸And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

It looks like observing Passover and making animal sacrifices are higher on the list than keeping the Sabbath too. Do you do either of those? By your own faulty logic, they provide the framework for the Sabbath commandment to be enacted.

Oh, and if you aren't going to take the time to learn how to properly use an ellipsis (...) or make sure that your post makes grammatical sense, don't bother responding. I'm about done wading through random and misused words and punctuation. If you don't care enough when writing it, I don't see how you can expect me to care enough to read it.

[laconicsax]

80. Here you go:

http://tinyurl.com/ychd9pu

[conscious evolution]

85. Thank you

[liberal_at_heart]

9. Just because a religious idea works does not mean you can base laws on it

A lot of Buddhists are vegetarians. Being vegetarian is good for your health. Meditation is also good for your health. But you can't make a law for either religious or health reasons(for non-Buddhists) stating that no one can eat meat of any kind.

[zeemike]

14. It has noting to do at all with religion.

And it is not a religious law.
The religious law was made by Mosis...and it was made to conform the the ten commandments in the same way our Constitution was used as a basis for the law.
But the forth commandment was spelled out in great detail as exactly it was to be implemented and if you study it you find it to be the basis of an economic system.

[liberal_at_heart]

17. Sorry but I still find basing laws or economic systems on religion dangerous

[zeemike]

19. But I was trying to make the point that there is nothing in that commandment

that is religous....nothing at all...It is totally secular and economic.

[laconicsax]

22. Uh huh.

There's nothing religious about it...nothing at all...

The God solution

I will suggest to you that there is a solution to most of the world problems that can factually be said to come from God, if you believe in him, and if you don’t then it makes sense to do it, if you are truly one that wants a better world….and I assume most here do.

It is something that both religious and non religious can agree on but has the added benefit of authority from God for those that do believe…and it is simple and contained in the Ten Commandments.
It is the commandment “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy”
And for those not familiar with this commandment it is the only one of the ten that is expanded on in such great detail, and contrary to common belief has nothing to do with going to church or worshiping God at all….the basic premise of this commandment is this:...

(emphasis mine of course)

The basis of the sabbath commandment is a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. "God worked for six days, then rested on the seventh and called it holy. Keep this holy day by resting on it."

[zeemike]

26. So what are you saying

That if any reference is made to god, religion, bible, believers or anything that even suggest some religious meaning I cannot talk to you?
And anything I say then must be dismissed....
And that commandment is not based on Gennisis....it is clearly done with a propose to establish an economic and social system for Isreal...

[laconicsax]

32. Clearly you've never read your holy book.

Exodus 20:8-11

⁸Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. ⁹Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: ¹⁰But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: ¹¹For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Taken straight from your Ten Commandments (the first set anyway)

That if any reference is made to god, religion, bible, believers or anything that even suggest some religious meaning I cannot talk to you?
And anything I say then must be dismissed....

No, you can say whatever you like. Just remember that if you're advocating establishing religious doctrine as the law of the land then I'm going to call you on it, especially when the idea itself is moronic.

And that commandment is not based on Gennisis[sic]....it is clearly done with a propose[sic] to establish an economic and social system for Isreal[sic]...

See the above citation. It's based on a literal reading of Genesis and the Israel (note the correct spelling please) in question was a small pastoral religious community.

[zeemike]

42. Again a heaping pile of shit.

My statement stands....and I am very familiar with the bible....and also the tactics of disassembling and straw men.

[laconicsax]

51. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

-You say that the commandment, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" has no religious meaning.

-I point out that the rest of the commandment says, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

You call that "a heaping pile of shit" and a "straw man"

I hope you realize that the "heaping pile of shit" is the commandment that you've been heralding as a solution to societal ills. There are also no straw men in my response. Citing a source (your source by the way) is not a straw man, neither is quoting you and then directly responding to your own words.

The Bible is quite explicit on taking the Sabbath as a day of (mandatory) rest because, as it says in Exodus 20:11 (and elsewhere if I'm not mistaken)

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This is dependent on the creation story in Genesis 1 talking about 7, 24-hour days (i.e. a literal interpretation of the story).

[zeemike]

63. And so you are saying that this commandment had no reason

Just an arbitrary law drawn from the Genesis acount...
I hate to get into this deeper but Jesus understood it's relevance when he told the Pharisees that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
It's benefits are obvious if you give it any thought at all....people are more hopeful if they have something to look forward to, like a day of rest now and again.
And I don't suppose you can grasp the concept that perhaps the number 7 was used BECAUSE it had reference to Genesis account but that 5,6,or 8 would have had the same effect

[laconicsax]

94. Do you realize that you're arguing my point?

I've been trying to tell you that the whole reason for a seven-day week with a day of rest is because of a literal reading of Genesis, and here you repeat my point.

You were never advocating having a day of rest every five, six, or eight days. You were advocating implementation of a religious law centered on the number seven. Why the number seven? Well, as you so deftly pointed out, because of Genesis.

Is English not your primary language?

[zeemike]

108. To me frankly that seem so petty

Yes the number seven has meaning as do all numbers and in every culture....so by that standard no number can be chosen without violating the rule that you just made.
The catch 22 rule.
Sure there is a connection but so what ....that connection has noting to do with the validity of the Sabbath of the land or the jubilee. and has no meaning when looking at how it would work.

[laconicsax]

114. Ok, I'll try to explain this again.

To me, frankly that seems so petty.

Yes, the number seven has meaning, as do all numbers and in every culture, so by that standard no number can be chosen without violating the rule that you just made.

Sorry, wrong. This is about whether or not the reason for adopting something is based on religion, which the 7th day Sabbath most definitely is. I've posted exactly why that is in very large print above. If you can't understand that, then I'm sorry for your loss.

The Catch-22 rule.

You're actually misusing the expression. A Catch-22 rule would require circular logic or a double bind, which rejecting the adoption of a religious rule as secular law doesn't involve. A Catch-22 would be more along the lines of, "The number seven cannot be used under any circumstances. The number chosen must be an integer between six and eight" because in order to fulfill the second part, the first part must be violated and vice versa.

Sure there is a connection, but so what? That connection has noting to do with the validity of the Sabbath of the land, or the Jubilee, and it has no meaning when looking at how it would work.

That's true, but irrelevant. The problem is that you are suggesting the adoption of a religious precept as secular law. That it's a terrible idea isn't the matter at hand, but if you'd rather argue it on those grounds, please continue to do so with the people politely explaining why the idea is a terrible one. You acknowledged down-thread that the Jubilee would cause a major economic collapse (your exact words were "the world would collapse"), but yet you continue to advocate it.

[zeemike]

126. The world would collapse was said sarcastically

But not without some truth to it....the world as we now know it would change for sure....I am just saying that the change would be for the better both financially and ecologically in the long run.
It would create stability in the financial sector and greatly increase bio diversity....that is my point.

But for all the good I think it would do, you say it cannot be done because it uses the same number as Genesis account of creation...sory but that seem petty.

[laconicsax]

132. You have no way of knowing what you claim to know.

You don't know that dismantling the current global economic system and replacing it with a bronze-age alternative would have a positive result. In fact, there are no indications that what you say is even a likely prediction. The various subthreads below discuss some of the various reasons why it is a terrible idea, and every time you're presented with a reason, you just dismiss it out of hand and say that we should just try it and see. Not only is that foolhardy, it is reckless. It is so far from given that your idea would have any positive benefit that I have to wonder if you're just playing a prank on all of us.

Also, you've again continued to miss the point I've been making. I don't give a shit about the number seven--I'm not into numerology or any other wacky superstition. What I do care about is the fact that you are advocating is implementing a wholly religious practice as secular law.

Despite the fact that you call it "The God Solution," that it's taken directly from scripture, and that you credit it as 'factually coming from God' (although that's factually wrong), you persist. The United States has a secular government, based on secular laws. It is unconstitutional to adopt religious law. What's more, as far as I can see, the fact that it's religious may be the only reason you think it's a good idea, especially when this entire 100+ response thread is basically several people explaining why your "God Solution" is an awful idea.

I refuse to accept laconicspouse's proposition that your sheer doggedness, inability to form cogent arguments, complete ignorance of the subjects you claim to know, and persistent struggle with the English language is a result of you being eight years old, but I'm starting to doubt myself. You have yet to present a single argument to support your case that isn't founded on ignorance or unwarranted hope in bronze-age religious tradition as a solution to 21st century problems.

Oh and let's add "biodiversity" to the list of topics don't understand.

[zeemike]

135. Well wow, I think you covered everything.

And throughly dressed me down....gess I should crawl back in my hole and lick my wounds.
But good to know that you are such a fount of wisdom and can tell us all what is good for us and what is not...How can we live without your wisdom and intellectual magnificence.

[laconicsax]

138. You're welcome.

I look forward to your return...provided you learn to spell.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AsahinaKimi]

15. well put liberal_at_heart.

eom.

[darkstar3]

36. +1 n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

4. if all debt is going to be forgiven who would loan anything?

not me

[zeemike]

12. Who would need your loan?

And that is a serious question.

[Fumesucker]

6. No debt and a piece of land = starvation for the great majority of people..

Most land isn't good farmland, just having a piece of land does not imply the ability to grow crops on that land.

Most people do not have the knowledge or skills to grow enough to eat even if they had fertile land.

Unless you have enough stored food to eat until you can get crops in the ground and harvested you are going to starve.

A bad season can kill you even if you have enough to live through the growing season because you may not grow enough to eat the following season while the crops are still in the ground.

[zeemike]

10. No no....most land is farm land.

Just look at a map of the US...the vast center section is good farm land and all the land around rivers and streams.
And most of that farm land now is owned by big corporations like ADM....i am saying that this land must be returned to people, that only people have the right to own it.
Now lets say you have lived in the city all your life and can't do the farm thing....so you rent it out for the 49 years to ADM or even a neighbor who decided he wanted to farm his land and expand....
And I know there would be many that would go back to the land for a better life....and they could re learn the skills their grandfathers had.

[Fumesucker]

16. There's a reason people are leaving small farming towns all over the country..

Once they've seen the big city you can't keep them down on the farm.

For people with good educations living in a small town or rural area is often stultifying in the extreme. Educated people want people around to talk to about something other than the weather, the crops and gossip about the neighbors.

My father grew up in the kind of situation you're talking about, no heat, no running water, an outhouse for sanitation, he hated it and would never have willingly gone back. Farm work without modern equipment is back breaking and boring in the extreme.

In fact we have about seven acres here where I live with my daughter and son in law, my son in law's grandmother lives on the same property in another house and she grew up just like what you're talking about during the Depression, they were desperately poor, so poor they grew sugar cane and had it milled for their sweetener as well as growing their own vegetables and raising chickens and pigs for meat. She definitely wouldn't go back to it willingly I've had quite a few conversations about this with her.

[zeemike]

18. I said back to the land not back in time.

There is no reason to equate the two.
All this land is wired up already and we have modern pluming and sanitation and equipment.
And in fact it would spur further development in equipment for the small farmer if there were more of them.

[Fumesucker]

20. Running just power lines to every little plot of land with a house on it is going to be expensive..

Our house is about 480 feet from the cable TV drop, we ended up with satellite because the cable company wanted over $400 just to run a new fiber optic cable to the house.. A new power installation would be way more than that..

Then you have to build a house to live in on each little plot of land,pipe in water or drill a well, install a septic tank and so on.. You're talking probably $80,000 investment to get a place to live by the time you get the modern conveniences.

My brother is close to what you're talking about and he is far handier than the average person as well as being hyperactive and it's taken him twenty years of a good income and a hell of a lot of effort to get his property truly livable. His gardens are nowhere near enough to feed the three people he has living on his property and he has had to put electric fences around both gardens to keep the deer from eating everything.

And as I said, one bad season and you starve.

[laconicsax]

23. But if you're living in fantasy land, it's all good.

Clearly the OP is living somewhere that has little basis in reality.

[zeemike]

25. But that was actually the purpose for the seventh year.

To prevent starvation from one bad year.
This forced the farmer to store food for that seventh year and so there were always storage of the necessities of life....it worked well for the early nation of Israel.

Most people don't get it that the wealth of this nation is in it's land....It's land is what made us rich and prosperous. And the fact that the individual farmer has been driven off the land does not change that fact.
And I am suggesting that we need a new era of agrarianism that provides for all of our people.

[Fumesucker]

27. The wealth of this nation is actually in its people..

And truly, most people don't want to farm if they have other options, farming is to a big extent a generalist type of occupation, you have to be handy, good at a large variety of skills to do it and it takes a great deal of effort and learning to do so.

Farmers that leave their land fallow usually rotate which field they have fallow, they don't allow their entire acreage to be fallow for an entire year, they break it up and have a small portion fallow at all times or a lot of the time..

There is a rural living forum on DU, you would probably be well advised to post your ideas there, I'm not competent to address a lot of these issues as I'm not a farmer but I'm enough of a generalist to have a clue about a lot of things.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=268

[zeemike]

28. This post was not about farming

It is about how we can stop this system that creates poverty that is generational.
In our present system a farmer may lose his land and he loses it forever....so the generations that follow him do not have an inheritance.
Under this system poverty was restricted to one generation because if your father lost his land you would get it back as your inheritance.
That was the whole propose of the Jubilee year.

[Fumesucker]

29. You mentioned farm land and fallow several times..

What about people (the great majority) whose property is not farm related and they lose it?

Or do farmers get a special deal that no one else does?

[zeemike]

43. The way it was set up in Israel was that land in the city

Is treated the same as it is now....you could buy and sell it forever just as we do now....they made distinctions between land in the city and farm land.

[tama]

55. Not so

actually we have all the knowhow of how to live with enough comfort and how to do it cheaply and sustainably. I'm not going into details but google permaculture, ecovillages etc. if you want to find out more.

And as for "one bad season and you starve", that applies to monoculture (Irish famine because of relying on potate and single variety of it being the classic example) but not to "polyculture" - forest gardens etc. where if one crop fails one year there are dozens of others.

And if the deer eats your garden, you eat the deer. Or if you get snail infestation, you get ducks to eat the snails and then you eat the ducks. :)

[Fumesucker]

73. Hunter gatherer societies are very much knowledge based..

You have to have an intimate and deep knowledge of a certain specific piece land in order to survive that way, it's why agriculturalists can move on to a new location more easily than a hunter-gatherer society.

[tama]

117. I don't quite follow

Sustainable horticulture ("permaculture" etc.) is all about intimate and deep knowledge of local environment, microclimates etc. etc. It is adviced that permaculture design starts with at least one year of just observing with all senses before doing anything - there's no need to take this advice literally, but it goes to show how important intimate knowledge is, especially in order to avoid unnecessary and harmfull actions.

Do you mean by "agriculturalists" only mechanized non sustainable farming methods, excluding sustainable horticulture?

[Fumesucker]

130. I mean agriculturalists in the traditional sense I suppose..

If you plant and grow your food it is easier to move on to a different location than it is if you are dependent on hunting and gathering, which require detailed knowledge of a specific territory, where food plants grow, where the game gathers at a salt lick, that sort of thing.

Sustainable horticulture even is more easily moved to a different location than is a hunter gatherer culture.

[tama]

141. Hmm

Interesting view, opening up a whole can of complexities. Of course, horticulturists are usually also hunters and gatherers. And not living constantly in one place but moving around according to season and/or making new slash and burn clearing once in few years.

Large forest gardens, for example the size of California which was tended with "indian fires" before Spanish came and ruined that ecosystem, are in many ways very local.

A small suburban Vietnamese forest garden that has provided same family for 17 generations is extremely local.

[zeemike]

111. Wonderful to see a yes we can post

And yes we can live sustainably....but there if far more profit in continuous escalating consumption

[tama]

118. Yes we can!

Learning about these skills and attitudes has been wonderfull, indeed.

The "profits" in continuous escalating consumption are not real. One cant eat money and having more than one needs tend to lead to constant worrying of loosing the excess property instead of gratitude for what one has.

[zeemike]

129. And I hope this will catch on among the young people.

Because it is with them that our future will be determined....Keep learning more and teach others.

[tama]

54. On the other hand

lots of educated people are seeing the writ on the ceiling and leaving cities to relearn self sufficient (and fun!) ways to live. You can call it a neohippie way of living or what ever you like.

Sure, practicing agriculture in a way that is destructive to the land (doing as dictated by master classes and consumerism) is no fun - it's slavery. Working with the land (natural gardening, permaculture, edible forests and landscapes etc.) instead of working against the land (to keep it constantly at unnatural state - at first stage of succession and bare) as part of a community based on equality and compassion is fun and rewarding and healthy.

PS: Others who like city life are doing guerilla gardening etc. community work to relearn primary production in cities, to make also cities self-sufficient.

[ironbark]

137. To tama, on the ‘fun’ of living on the land.

Dear tama, I’ve read lots of your posts, learned a lot, couldn’t find much of anything to disagree with…..but…living the permaculture dream on the land SUCKS!
Big time.

From your#55-
“if you get snail infestation, you get ducks to eat the snails and then you eat the ducks.”

1/ You are not allowed to feed snails to ducks. Youngest daughter says so. “The snails are our friends”

2/ Have you ever lived with ducks tama? Have you ever tried >herding< ducks back into the pen at night so the foxes don’t get them? Have you ever seen what happens on the ONE NIGHT you forget the ducks? The bloody carnage in the morning? And out of 20 the one surviving injured duck that you can’t get to and dispose of before the daughter sees it- “We have to take it to the Vet” . There’s a two hour drive and an $80 dollar consultation for a $5 duck. “Give it these antibiotics and keep it warm in a box in the laundry…it will be up and about in a couple of weeks”
FOUR MONTHS LATER the freaking duck is still in the laundry, limping round, shitting everywhere and telling everyone “Oh, I’m feeling a little better but I had a bit of a turn this morning”.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ya get a sheep to keep the grass down, the thing could escape from Alcatraz.
You rig a running line and tether, it ties itself in knots Houdini couldn’t untangle.
And then- “The sheep needs shearing dear”….Ever shorn a sheep tama?...no “fun”

FOOD COMES FROM A SUPERMARKET TAMA… OR BETTER STILL FROM A DELICATESSEN OR RESTERAUNT……and don’t ever, ever, have anything to do with ducks!

"guerilla gardening"???....Which way up would you like me to plant a row of them?

[tama]

139. Thanks! :D n/t

[radical noodle]

143. Thanks for this...

I needed a laugh. I'll see that duck hobbling around for a very long time!

:rofl:

[conscious evolution]

75. The opposite is also happening

City people are leaving the city for the country.Not as many now as are moving to the city but that number is growing every day.

[darkstar3]

34. Come down to MO and say that.

You know what you can grow in 80% of MO? Rocks.

Besides, since when are we an agrarian society again?

[laconicsax]

37. Since someone thought that the Bible was a good source of ideas.

[tama]

56. Since

the end of era of oil. Since now and yesterday, if we want to learn to farm sustainably and create edible forest gardens instead of starving to death. Evolution means adapting to natural environment, inability to adapt means extinction.

A thumbrule says that it takes 10 calories of fossile fuels to put one calory on table. Think about that.

When Cuba lost its oil imports as Soviet block collapsed, they were willing to learn when a group of Australian women - permaculturists - came to offer their advice. Cubans learned and keep on learning organic gardening both in cities and rural, without oil they didn't starve but kept their education, health care etc. systems functioning.

[darkstar3]

62. And we're still not an agrarian society. Do much farming, do ya?

[tama]

71. Yup, and learning more.

This is a dislocated society, in order to feed ourselves in post oil world we need to relearn to work with the land.

[tama]

53. Debt and no land

is of course a guaranteed starvation and/or slavery for most people.

Now, why should those who can garden, gather and hunt and fish etc, feed those who can't (especially the feodal, bankster etc. master classes) - and refuse to learn even if given opportunity?

In the post oil society we need to relearn to live of the land and solar energy from photosynthesis as organic parts of the ecosystem. Who should be exempted from this learning process and why?

Should there be allways some master class that need not work for their livelihood understanding the foundations of life but be able consume what others produce by some debt or other mechanism of violent extortion?

[Bluebear]

7. And Jedadiah begat Ham and divided it by six cubits. Whatever,

:)

[zeemike]

11. Well thanks for the imput. n/t

[moobu2]

30. why not every 6 years or every 9?

[laconicsax]

33. Because it's a shit idea if you don't follow a literal reading of Genesis. n/t

[darkstar3]

35. You need to understand a few things.

1. You can't base laws on religion in a secular society.
2. Your six day work week mandated in your God solution doesn't touch the number of hours worked per week. Frankly, given that I work 50-60+ hours a week, I REALLY like my two-day weekend. If we implemented your solution, I wouldn't have that anymore.
3. We are no longer an agrarian society. In a barter/trade/capitalist society, land is not valued the same for every person.
4. Stating that this is God's solution is a big jump. There is no proof that God exists, let alone that he laid down this specific solution for certain societal ills. The only evidence you have of the source of this solution is the Bible, written by men.

[Silent3]

38. Zeus is offering a 3-day on, 4-day off work week...

...with 8 weeks per year paid vacation and unlimited sick leave. And a minimum of two acres with good soil for every family.

And a pony!

Praise Zeus! Praise be to Zeus!

[tama]

58. Mother Earth

offers four hour or less work per day (some days more, some less, many none) to satisfy basic material needs. One hectar for each, of which 5 ares (10*10 meters) of cultivated land is enough to feed a family even in North, together with gathering mushrooms, berries etc.

Proven in practice.

But with forest gardens few generations old it's going to get MUCH easier than that, sorry for the hardship of the beginning. Windmills for small communities and families shouldn't be a too big problem either - if the Internet can be sustained, for global communication. That Mother Earth can't promise, but it would be nice.

[Silent3]

68. I have no desire to live by gathering berries and mushrooms...

..with an off chance that maybe, should Mother Earth be so kind, I'd still be permitted to log onto the internet (using a laptop made out of pebbles and twigs, no doubt). The "paradise" of natural living, with average lifespans of 40 years (not even accounting for very high infant mortality in those figures) is not something I long for.

What on Mother Earth does your post have to do with the OP anyway?

[tama]

77. That's understandable

but the issue is larger than individual desires and abilities. Adapting to post oil reality is a long process, could take generations, but also sudden and abrupt collapse cannot be excluded. Regardless of your personal desires it's good for all of us that people are getting ready and learning skills and attitudes required for sustainable way of living and planting forest gardens, and the more people do so the better. If everybody just keeps on believing that food comes from supermarkets and one day that illusion goes puff, then what follows won't be pretty, do you agree?

If Cuba is a good if not the model to follow for a post oil society - and why shouldn't it be? - the infant mortality and lifespan are there better than in US. Internet access in Cuba is not the best that one can hope for, though...

OP is about movement towards more agrarian and equal society and so is this post.

[Silent3]

78. Since when do "agrarian" and "equal" go together?

The OP offers a solution to unsustainable ecological practices the same way a guillotine offers a solution to a headache.

If the oil-based economy collapses and I'm forced to eek out a living picking berries, I'm sure as hell not going to look to the Bible for farming or economic advice.

[tama]

106. Good question

Native hortonomic tribes are usually just as egalitarian as pure hunter gatherers. With hindsight the hortonomic experiment of coevolution with certain hay plants - if that is meant by agrarian way of life - wasn't perhaps such a good idea as it lead to hierarchic societies and ecocatastrophies and empires. Annual hay plants have very short attention span compared to perennials and especially trees.

Yeah, I prefer permaculture books etc. to bible, but if also bible has good hints I'm not opposed because of the source.

Jubileum - cancelling all debts - is an excellent idea and I'm all for it, regardless of the original source of the idea. As things are going - in the direction nobody really likes - we need better ideas, radical ones. If Jubileum means getting rid of banks or at least private banks, all the better.

[Silent3]

119. Since when are "better ideas" and "radical ones" necessarily the same?

You're just voicing "I mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!" types of sentiments, but you have no idea that getting rid of banks, or just private ones, would really make things better. You don't like those bad, nasty "banksters", so you're letting the emotional satisfaction of wishing them all the way replace any argument for the actual consequences.

As for "Jubileum" (sic -- I think you mean "jubilee") being "an excellent idea", how the hell do you know that? Just because it makes you happy to imagine the common people having all of their debts paid off, and the evil banksters getting their comeuppance, doesn't mean the end result would be a viable economic system.

[tama]

121. Not necessarily allways

depends on the ideas.

I've been through the "mad as hell" period, glad to get that over and done.

Better to follow the line of thought before jumping to conclusions about motives. Care to listen? Money as we know it is based on interest aka usury, fiat systems and all that jazz of money as debt, which on systemic level is dependent from continuous growth - which is absurd on a limited planet and as such.

So instead of trying to fix and fine tune a system that is absurd and harmfull, why not just stop doing what is creating the problem in the first place? Let's stop being ruled by money and monopoly of money makers. If some forms of money are deemed necessary, lets create LETS and other similar system at the grass roots level. Yes we can.

And when it is obvious that the current way is leading to the not-so-nice, jumping out from that train into unknown and unpredictable future is certainly better alternative than fatalist surrender to predictable not-so-nice - or denial and then angry "why didn't they tell us", it's their fault so lets fetch the guillotines etc.

There really is no need for predictable end result, as predictability does not really work in social matters, or if it works then just negatively, as in "all systems based on predictability and control get "surprised" by (un)predictable uncontrollable events and then collapse".

[beam me up scottie]

122. .

[Silent3]

123. 'interest aka usury"

While "excessive" might not always be easy to clearly define, usury is only excessive interest. You don't get to, by verbal slight of hand, turn all interest into usury.

...which on systemic level is dependent from continuous growth...

There are certain business practices that are dependent on continuous growth, but monetary systems, interests, and business practices are not all the same, they are different facets of economic systems, and the interconnections are too complicated to be swept away via rash over-generalization.

And when it is obvious that the current way is leading to the not-so-nice...

I don't think that is so obvious at all, at least in a bigger picture than the last 30 years. Merely turning back the clock to pre-Reagan deregulation of banking would do quite a bit to make our economic system more stable without having to radically scrap everything.

There really is no need for predictable end result...

Then why propose any new ideas at all? The results of your idea won't be any more predictable than for existing ideas... for which you ironically seem quite ready to predict disaster.

[tama]

124. Semantic shifts happen

The Latin etymology of usury refers to all interest, not just "excessive". I like etymology.

There is no over-simplification in the very simple mathematical fact that system based on interest needs to grow by the amount of interest (ie exponentially) to stay functional. The complexities you mention have mostly to do with blowing smoke over this self evident mathematical fact.

Your comment makes me think that you are in deep denial about the scale of our problems, but so be it, you can believe what you like. I'm not interested in debating that issue, at least now.

But without shared understanding of the scale of our problems, it's futile to discuss other issues that would follow from a shared understanding.

[Silent3]

125. "a shared understanding"

As in you understand, you're the one who understands -- not merely has an opinion -- but I don't understand like you do. Uh huh. I guess we can't all claim your deep grasp of the issues. :eyes:

There is no over-simplification in the very simple mathematical fact that system based on interest needs to grow by the amount of interest (ie exponentially) to stay functional.

Interest on what? If you get a mortgage at 4.75% interest (like I have right now) what exactly must grow at a rate of 4.75% or else some unspecified "it" will no longer "stay functional"? I can certainly still afford my mortgage without my salary growing at that rate or the economy growing at that rate.

The only requirement for interest on mortgages to be part of a "functional system" is for the extra cost of the interest to be considered a reasonable bargain in order to own a home sooner than you could otherwise if you had to save all of the money up first (meanwhile throwing a lot of it away on rent that doesn't build equity).

[tama]

133. Think systemic

What must grow is the monetary system allowing and based on interest. M1-3 needs to grow continuously or the system fails.

[Silent3]

134. And there's no other answer to it but 0% loans?

Or no loans at all? Otherwise the whole system MUST fail? Right. BS1-3 obviously manage to grow continuously.

There are some problems with a system that requires continuous growth, but conflating those problems with interest of any sort, and calling any degree of interest "usury" does not follow from recognizing systemic problems with relying on growth. You just so desperately want your vision of berry-picking humans in harmony with nature to come true that you're against anything you think contributes to our current mode of living, especially anything that the evil banksters like, and that's good enough for you for making huge leaps of "logic".

[tama]

136. I don't have all the answers

especially how to achieve soft landing to sustainable level and what technologies are sustainable and what not, what can be saved from current way of life if anything. I just don't know and probably nobody else does.

What I know is that there are sustainable ways of life that work, that we can learn and do like permaculture. And that any hopes of soft landing and adjusting to situation require getting rid of structures that enforce continuous growth.

[Silent3]

40. Can you imagine what would happen in a modern economy...

...if Jubilee years were the law of the land?

Not that I don't like the idea of a bunch of fat cat bankers eating the losses and ordinary people having big debts lifted... but come on, let's get real.

What would happen is that no one could get a loan with a term that ended after, or even near, the Jubilee year. The closer you got to Jubilee, the tighter credit markets would get. Want a 30 year mortgage? Good luck! They'd be available for only one decade, maybe a little more, every 50 years. Want a car loan in the time period five years before Jubilee? Hah!

[zeemike]

46. Yes the world would collapse if you could not get a loan.

That shows us how much we have been conditioned to our sorry state of affairs...we live because the bankers are kind enough to make us a loan...and clean up when they do it.
And that was not lost on those people at that time....loans and the price of land was completely covered during the 50 years in the text.

[Silent3]

59. That's absolutely silly to treat it like a binary choice between...

...exactly what we have now and the laws of ancient goatherds.

In fact, until Reagan started the process of watering down bank regulation (and sadly, Clinton played a part in that process), we had a fairly decent banking an insurance system.

No, the world wouldn't collapse if you couldn't get a loan, it would simply fail to advance to much of a height to fall from. It's not just personal and business loans, government bonds are a form of loan too. Roads, railroads, canals, schools, libraries, public universities... the construction of many of these things is often funded by bonds. All of that, and the jobs those kinds of projects produce, would come and go in an artificial 50 year cycle.

[zeemike]

61. First let me say againi....This is not about Old testament law.

And it seems no matter how many times I say it no one here seems to hear....to busy I guess working out their angry counter post to bother to listen or try to understand.

But your point about the collapse of our financial system is correct....it would change things...but that is also my point.
But I suggest that we got along before we had credit and such and we can get along better without it. Under this kind of system where all property is returned to it's owner we have value placed on what is real wealth...the land itself.
And it would have the effect of limiting poverty to a single generation instead of generational poverty as we have now.

[Silent3]

67. "We got along before" by exactly what standard of "getting along"?

The way we "got along" when average life spans were less than 40 years? When housing meant a tent or a mud hut? When the best medical care than anyone had, rich or poor, was a quack with a magic rattle or leeches?

We tend to look at poverty in relative terms to the people around us -- how much we have compared to our peers. If you make that comparison across spans of historical time rather than within the narrow scope of a contemporary community, people today experiencing "generational poverty" are in many ways richer than all but the richest of men from the Biblical past.

[zeemike]

81. so you cannot imagine both existing together?

Modern society with internet and rapid travel co existing with the agricultural practice of letting the land rest for one out of 7 years?
I actually think it would be a boom to our economy for several reasons.
And if it could be done on a world scale and include the seas of the world we could solve a lot of our environmental problems...it is just what the seas of the world need right now a one year rest to replenish themselves.

[Silent3]

83. I can imagine lots of things...

...but I don't see appeals to God helping out with any of them. I have this funny notion that simply thinking our way through the issues, and testing various ideas on a small scale when possible before moving to larger implementations, would work a lot better. I certainly don't see anything specifically meritorious or divine about your OP ideas.

[zeemike]

91. Is the commandment against murder and theft and appeal to God

Or is there some practical use for making that illegal? Should we be against making laws like that because you could call it a divine commandment?

[Silent3]

98. The "commandment" is, the general prohibition isn't

Plenty of societies have deemed murder and theft unacceptable. There are good secular reasons, reasons that make perfect sense from the standpoint of an evolved intelligent social species, without invoking deities, for enforcing such rules.

I'm hardly saying never follow or enforce any rule just because some religion has made it a rule too.

What I'm saying is:

1) That a rule is good doesn't prove it has divine origin.
2) That a rule is claimed to be of divine origin doesn't make it good, or make it better than alternatives.
3) That a rule is claimed to be of divine origin is an utterly insufficient reason for considering or adopting the rule.

[zeemike]

99. So to put it my way

Whether the rule is or is not contained or even originated in any religious document is moot to the point of whether it is a good thing or not.
That is exactly what I am saying...and so any argument that it has religious origins or not should not be used as points for or against it.
If you can agree with that we can talk about the subject of whether or not this would or could solve problems that we now have.

[Silent3]

102. I've already given reasons separately why I don't think Jubilee...

...is a good idea, and others have given reasons why the agricultural suggestions and time-off policies of Biblical origin aren't all that particularly commendable. You keep making excuses like "well, as a minimum", but I could say that a rule for one day off per 100 is a good rule too, compared to no days off at all, "as a minimum", as "something is better than nothing".

It's hard to escape the feeling that you want special consideration for the rules suggested in the OP because they are of purported divine origin, as if that's at least a reason, if nothing more, than to give those rules a bit more consideration than others. I get the feeling that you're hoping that if we see just how good life could be doing things "God's way" that even if we didn't believe in your God at first we'd feel a little more inclined toward belief as a result.

[zeemike]

110. Well i think this can stand on it's own merits.

And I never intended to have the discussion of whether there is or is not a god.

so the question is...would a rest for the land be a good thing or not...(the number is not important and we can find a new one latter if you still object to 7)
And would a Jubilee year solve our boom and bust cycle in our economy
I think it would and I am not alone on this despite what you see here.

[Silent3]

120. The only likely solution to "boom and bust" that you'd likely get from a Jubilee...

...would be an economy that didn't go boom/bust very much because it would spend more time on the "bust" side, and "bust" would be the new norm.

I never said anything about whether there is or is not a god either... I questions the God-framing of the OP, which is either pointless, or has a God-promoting agenda. Which is it?

[zeemike]

128. The title was intended to be provocative..

Not just to atheist but those that are believers in god....especialy them because here is a commandment strait out of the bible that they ignore and reject.
But I disagree with your bust prediction....I think it would lead to stability and predictability, but more importantly wealth created by the bottom of our society that flowed upward instead of the other way around.

[laconicsax]

95. "Yes the world would collapse"

I'm glad you understand why your OP is a stupid idea.

[beam me up scottie]

45. This is the funniest thread I've seen in a long time!

:rofl:

[zeemike]

48. Actually I agree.

I posted this in GD and it was immediately transfered to the religion form because it used the word God
Then ever angry atheist piled on with abuse and scorn....in a religion forum.
You are right that is funny....and completely sad.

[beam me up scottie]

49. Actually they handled you with kid gloves. laconicsax should get a medal for restraint.

We're still not sure if you're really that naive or if you're being purposely obtuse.

[zeemike]

65. Sorry but I did not know that this forum was about how much you hate religion

And didn't know that there are cops everywhere just waiting to pounce on anyone that does not.

[beam me up scottie]

76. Dude, you blindly toddled into GD and tried to sell us a law based on a religious commandment.

You have repeatedly refused to reconsider your position or acknowledge the very valid points made by other posters.

What did you think would happen?

And I've got news for you, if you think your experience in this forum was traumatizing, you obviously haven't been paying attention in GD. They would have torn you to shreds.

Here at least you get to limp home and pout about it.

Seriously, zm, I like you, I don't know why, but I do. I don't think you're a fundamentalist and I doubt, if you really thought about it, that you would advocate laws based on religious commandments.

[zeemike]

87. The laws against murder are based on religious commandments

Does that make them wrong?
But you are way wrong if you think I am traumatized by this....I have did this many times before in many different forums sense 1992
And while most people have a knee jerk reaction like you do, I have found a few that understand what I am saying.
And by the way, I did not cook up this idea myself....it goes way back some thirty years when I stumbled across an article by a Jewish scholar that claimed these things and more...he went into great detail of how this worked for Israel as an economic system.
And how it worked as a compromise between free market capitalism and socialism....On one hand it insured that no one could get so big that they eat up the little fish and wind up owning everything like a king in a feudalistic state....but on the other hand allowed the free market to work in the cites.

[beam me up scottie]

89. No, they're not. You don't need religion to know that murder is wrong.

Although it does come in handy when you need an excuse to commit murder, especially on a monumental scale.

What was my "knee jerk reaction"? Did you or did you not propose making a religious commandment a law in an (allegedly) secular state?

Your idea sucked, why not learn from the experience and get over it?

[zeemike]

93. But yet I am not allowed to say that you don't need religion

to know that justice for people requires a redistributing of wealth when the top own everything.
Just as the practical purpose for the commandment against murder is self evident so should you consider this other commandment which has NO religious dogmas or prohibitions to it might just work in a practical way.

[beam me up scottie]

103. Were you home schooled?

How else could someone could be so ignorant about this issue?

[zeemike]

109. When I was in school there was no such thing as home school

Unless you lived in some remote part of Alaska.
And just what issue do you think I am ignorant on?

[beam me up scottie]

112. One issue? LOL! You wish.

Start with these, I just got back from the gym and I need to make supper:

the bible
the ten commandments
World History
Agriculture
Secular Governments
The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights
Financial regulations

Every time you posted bogus information about the above subjects, posters attempted to explain why it was incorrect, and instead of learning from this experience you blamed non-christians in this forum and our jihad on ... whatever it is you consider yourself.

:nopity:

[zeemike]

127. Zeitgeist, I consider my self a Zeitgeist

That best describes my belief system.
And I am not ignorant of any of those subjects. And willing to talk about any of them.

[darkstar3]

131. One person cannot be a Zeitgeist. n/t

[tama]

142. I have a friend

who lives in an ecovillage and keeps a home school because she prefers that to sending children to state school.

[laconicsax]

52. This got moved to R/T because you're advocating the adoption of religious customs as secular law.

At least, that's what I assume the reason to be. If you want more you should ask the mods.

[zeemike]

64. I don't really care why....it was a good thing

Because I had not been to this forum in years and it was an introduction into how it has changed into a forum where the masochistic religious person comes to be thrashed and humiliated.

[Iggo]

70. The you should feel right at home.

Welcome back.:hi:

[Fumesucker]

72. Now you know how it feels to be an atheist out in real life..

Thrashed and humiliated at every turn..

It's why some atheists get aggressive online, we absorb abuse and humiliation out in the real world and some of us aren't as good at turning the other cheek as the Christ was.

[zeemike]

82. Not from me.

And no one forces you to listen to the fundies or do anything that they might want you to do.
So I am not buying the victim thing.

[Fumesucker]

84. And no one forces you to read anything on here..

You played the victim card first, that's why I responded the way I did.

[beam me up scottie]

86. Really? What if said fundie is your boss?

Your landlord, city newspaper editor, local news anchor, or right wing radio personalities proselytizing and condemning via the radio at work?

How about when you find out your doctor hates atheists?

[zeemike]

92. I would and always have stood up for what I believe in

And if I lost jobs or potential friends so be it....but I don't ever consider myself a victim of anything but stupidity...and I can handel that

[beam me up scottie]

105. You're part of the Christian Nation, your beliefs ensure that the vast majority will accept you.

If you really believe there is no bigotry against atheists in this country then I'll have to agree with you, you're a victim of stupidity.

[zeemike]

107. I am not a part of any of that.

I am non religious I hold to no dogma of any church....In my younger days I was an avowed atheist and spent many hours debating my christian friends....and I did have christian friends....And I was very convincing in my arguments....but never hostile to them or what they believed.
the stupidity is in the hostility....it is not necessary nor does it make you look better or smarter.

[laconicsax]

116. You might want to ask yourself the following question:

"If this is such a good idea, why isn't anyone backing me up here or coming to my defense?" While I certainly don't speak for anyone other than myself DUers, I imagine the reason has something to do with just about everything you've posted in this thread either being demonstrably wrong, absurd, unintelligible, or a combination therein.

BMUS is absolutely right that you're fortunate that this got moved out of GD. There you would have had far more people piling on, pointing out every bit of what's wrong with your "God solution" and being far less polite. They're vicious over there.

[trotsky]

57. "And so the non-religious question to ask is; is there any value in this to us...?"

Hmm, let's see.

1) Every man and beast of burden must have a day of rest every 7 days.
Right now I get TWO days of rest every week - Saturday and Sunday. How exactly would it be better for me to give up one of those days? Are you a lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce or something?

2) Every 7 years the land must have a rest where nothing can be taken from it in that year.
Farmers already approach this in a much better way - by rotating crops and using nitrogen-fixing plants like alfalfa, clover, or soybeans. Why should they go backwards to a far more inefficient and non-productive way, not to mention their methods continually improve the soil versus stressing it severely in years 4,5, and 6 under your proposal?

3) And every 7X7 years of the 50th year all debt was forgiven and (farm) property returned to it’s (sic) owner.
As other posters have noted above, you won't find anyone to loan money when a jubilee year is approaching. Economic activity, generally funded by loans, would come to a grinding halt for a period of about 10 years every 50. Oh yeah, that's a recipe for a healthy economy.

[zeemike]

66. The one day out of seven is a minimum requirement

There is noting in it that says it must work 6 days.

And no they do not do it in the same way by rotation....the effects are not the same.
If you have a field that you plant grain on for 6 years and on the seventh you just let it sit there, some amazing things happen....plants that had been cultivated away start to grow....weeds we call them but they have the ability to pull up nutrients from the soil and make the land more fertile.
And with it probably a flush of mice and insects which provide food for birds and other anamuls....and all of this makes the land better, and preserves the environment.
But I suggest to you that we have not improved the soil....our soil fertility has been greatly reduced in the twentieth century...that is a fact you can look up.

I would like to answer that last question in detail but right now time does not permit because it involves looking at the whole 50 year cycle and I don't have the time right now....but it is not like you claim....a disaster because no one will loan.

[trotsky]

69. Sure.

Your replies show me you don't really care to think things through, nor do you really understand the factors at work. You really think after 6 years of farming, one year off is enough for land to recover? You clearly have no clue about modern agriculture.

And yeah, you should really think about lending grinding to a halt for 10 years every 40 and what kind of economic impact that would have.

[zeemike]

88. Yes one out of seven is enough.

And that has been practiced long before modern times.
And the fact that everyone does it the same year enhances the effects....and I do understand modern farming pretty well....spent some time doing it.

And what about if you know that lending will grind to a halt as you approach the 50th year? could you not plan for that as well as planing for the seventh year?....It is all about planing and having a plan.
Look what we have now....no credit and no one knew it was comming....and do you know how it will be 10 years from now?

[trotsky]

104. Your statements and questions indicate just how little you understand.

Good luck pushing your bronze age "solution" to all our problems.

[DeSwiss]

140. Ugh....

...more superstitious BULLSHIT.

- Bye-bye......