Equality May Lead To Banality?

[thesometimesaint]

Again, I haven't and don't consider charitable behavior to be asinine. What MAY be asinine is striving for equality rather than charity and love. To me, what distinguishes the gospel of Christ from Socialism, besides governmental compulsion and infringement on agency, is the gospel is focused on bringing people to Christ and enabling them to like him, whereas Socialism is focused on equality. The former is rationally intent on progressing people towards the highest common denominator, whereas the later seems prone to banally digressing towards the lowest common denominator.

But, my faith encourages me to respect the right of people to worship how, where, or what they may, and so to each their own.

Please explain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Neither socialism nor capitalism posits a God. Only that some outcomes are better for the body politic than others.

[wenglund]

Those terms are not mutually exclusive.

And, over the last century, there has been an increasing over-lap in those term.

To me, this is a result of certain Christians not only living in the world, but becoming of the world, and leaning more unto their own understanding and away from God, and where the genuine article of the gospel is increasingly substituted by counterfeits like Socialism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Neither socialism nor capitalism posits a God. Only that some outcomes are better for the body politic than others.

Actually, both can be interpreted as positing a god. To some extent and for some people, Capitalism posits the god of manna, whereas Socialism posits the god of big government.

But, this is beside my salient point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bcuzbcuz]

Again, I haven't and don't consider charitable behavior to be asinine. What MAY be asinine is striving for equality rather than charity and love. To me, what distinguishes the gospel of Christ from Socialism, besides governmental compulsion and infringement on agency, is the gospel is focused on bringing people to Christ and enabling them to like him, whereas Socialism is focused on equality. The former is rationally intent on progressing people towards the highest common denominator, whereas the later seems prone to banally digressing towards the lowest common denominator.

But, my faith encourages me to respect the right of people to worship how, where, or what they may, and so to each their own.

Please explain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I firmly believe that the focus should be on the lowest common denominator. I personally think the lowest of the low is greed. And I don't think that greed is easily overcome. Certainly, trying to appeal to the "better nature" of our fellow humans is an effort of wasted time and of little good.

The seven deadly sins, also known as the capital vices or cardinal sins, is a classification of objectionable vices (part of Christian ethics) that have been used since early Christian times to educate and instruct Christians concerning fallen humanity's tendency to sin. The currently recognized version of the sins are usually given as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

Theologically, a mortal or deadly sin is believed to destroy the life of grace and charity within a person and thus creates the threat of eternal damnation. "Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart.

Greed destroys charity and greed, the desire for owning and gluttoness stuffing of one's pride and pockets, is only countered by enforced taxation. You seem to find the sin in the socialism, rather than in the lusts that pull us from charity. I have little faith in waiting for the well-to-do to come to understanding of those less fortunate. Trinkle down economics has slowed to less than a trickle.

[wenglund]

I firmly believe that the focus should be on the lowest common denominator. I personally think the lowest of the low is greed. And I don't think that greed is easily overcome. Certainly, trying to appeal to the "better nature" of our fellow humans is an effort of wasted time and of little good.

The seven deadly sins, also known as the capital vices or cardinal sins, is a classification of objectionable vices (part of Christian ethics) that have been used since early Christian times to educate and instruct Christians concerning fallen humanity's tendency to sin. The currently recognized version of the sins are usually given as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

Theologically, a mortal or deadly sin is believed to destroy the life of grace and charity within a person and thus creates the threat of eternal damnation. "Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart.

Greed destroys charity and greed, the desire for owning and gluttoness stuffing of one's pride and pockets, is only countered by enforced taxation. You seem to find the sin in the socialism, rather than in the lusts that pull us from charity. I have little faith in waiting for the well-to-do to come to understanding of those less fortunate. Trinkle down economics has slowed to less than a trickle.

I, too, am against greed, though not for equality sake--and this because equality can be achieved by everyone becoming equally greedy or by having equal things about which they are equal greedy. In other words, equality can be achieved by devolving to the lowest common denominator--and sadly, as previously indicated, this is often the direction that egalitarianism tends to inadvertently head rather than towards our better nature. This is why, in part, I continue to argue that striving for equality MAY be banal.

Rather, I am against greed because it contravenes our "better nature" and prevents us from achieving, individually and collectively, our very best selves (i.e..to my way of thinking, becoming as Christ).

And, while I agree with you that greed and envy are powerful forces (though I would submit that it works as much on the hearts of the poor as the rich), unlike you, I don't have such a low opinion of mankind as to suppose that greed is so powerful that it can't be surmounted by an appeal to one's own better nature--i.e. one's love and charity, and/or better yet by an appeal to the transcendence of a higher power. Religious people prove quite often that it can be, and even to some extent the non-religious as well.

The problem with governmental coercion, is that since the government is of the people and by the people and for the people, and assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct about the superior power of greed over the hearts of mankind, then all that MAY likely happens with governmental coercion is the transfer of greed and envy from individuals to the collective, from each person to the government. The government becomes the engine of greed and envy--this too, often proves itself out in modern times. This, to me, is banal.

In fact, statistics show that people who are inclined to put the onus on the government for curbing greed and giving to the poor, tend to personally be the least charitable among us. In other words, shifting responsibility from self to government for matters of our "better self", tend to work against us realizing our "better selves." Again, this, to me, is banal.

But, I can respect that others may see it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 10, 2013 by wenglund

[bcuzbcuz]

The problem with governmental coercion, is that since the government is of the people and by the people and for the people, and assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct about the superior power of greed over the hearts of mankind, then all that MAY likely happens with governmental coercion is the transfer of greed and envy from individuals to the collective, from each person to the government. The government becomes the engine of greed and envy--this too, often proves itself out in modern times. This, to me, is banal.

In fact, statistics show that people who are inclined to put the onus on the government for curbing greed and giving to the poor, tend to personally be the least charitable among us. In other words, shifting responsibility from self to government for matters of our "better self", tend to work against us realizing our "better selves." Again, this, to me, is banal.

But, I can respect that others may see it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can't speak of life in the US in present times. I haven't lived there since 1969, and even then I only lived there for five years. But your understanding of how government becomes the engine of greed is far different than my experience.

I have, however, as my hero, Tommy Douglas of the CCF/NDP politics of Canada. In 2004, in a cross Canada poll that took over 8 months to complete, Tommy Douglas was voted the "Greatest Canadian". Almost single handedly he managed to bring about reforms in the way governments respond to and take of care of its citizens. Canada's Bill of Rights and its Medicare system are products of his never tiring work. As Tommy Douglas once said, "I felt that no boy should have to depend either for his leg or his life upon the ability of his parents to raise enough money to bring a first-class surgeon to his bedside".

Who are they, in your country, that can depend upon the best surgeons for treatment? Are they not the rich? Are the rich the only ones with the right for such treatment?

My oldest son had major heart surgery when he was four years old. The doctor who performed the surgery was the absolute number one surgeon in the world and the inventor of the procedure given my son. The whole procedure cost us not a single penny. My son is alive now thanks to that surgery. Had it depended upon our wealth we would not have been able to pay for the surgery, but since we lived in Sweden, the surgery was free, paid for by taxes. I fail to see how greed and envy enter into the picture?

As far as your statement that those who put the onus on government "for curbing greed and giving to the poor, tend to personally be the least charitable among us." I ask for CFR, please.

[wenglund]

I can't speak of life in the US in present times. I haven't lived there since 1969, and even then I only lived there for five years. But your understanding of how government becomes the engine of greed is far different than my experience.

I have, however, as my hero, Tommy Douglas of the CCF/NDP politics of Canada. In 2004, in a cross Canada poll that took over 8 months to complete, Tommy Douglas was voted the "Greatest Canadian". Almost single handedly he managed to bring about reforms in the way governments respond to and take of care of its citizens. Canada's Bill of Rights and its Medicare system are products of his never tiring work. As Tommy Douglas once said, "I felt that no boy should have to depend either for his leg or his life upon the ability of his parents to raise enough money to bring a first-class surgeon to his bedside".

Who are they, in your country, that can depend upon the best surgeons for treatment? Are they not the rich? Are the rich the only ones with the right for such treatment?

My oldest son had major heart surgery when he was four years old. The doctor who performed the surgery was the absolute number one surgeon in the world and the inventor of the procedure given my son. The whole procedure cost us not a single penny. My son is alive now thanks to that surgery. Had it depended upon our wealth we would not have been able to pay for the surgery, but since we lived in Sweden, the surgery was free, paid for by taxes. I fail to see how greed and envy enter into the picture?

Without intending to embark on a tangential debate about socialized medicine, let me just briefly say that the things you mentioned above have great emotional appeal, and in some respects I feel deeply inclined towards them. I, personally, am not a stranger to being financially destitute and in need of medical treatment and yet without health insurance, and I have seen the same with family members and friends and acquaintances.

However, I don't view the tugs on the heart as a mindless call to equality, but rather as a practical call to loving one's neighbor. I also don't view those tugs as necessarily a reason to abrogate personal responsibility and shift the burden to the government (a bureaucracy that has problems repairing the street in front of my house, let alone taking charge over life and death care), as opposed to other viable options.

I also don't view it as a call to examine the heart tugs in isolation, but to put things into perspective and as a part of a complex socio-economic whole. As heart-wrenching as it is to hear of people needing serious medical treatment, but who can't afford it, it may not make sense, and may even be banal, for the nation to provide that treatment if it, too, can't afford it, and if providing the treatment may result in, or significantly contribute to, the serious and perhaps complete financial collapse of that nation. Once the nation collapses, then fewer people, if any, will be able to afford medical treatment. In other words, it is banal to take actions that may likely cause the nation to end up far worse off than before the action--regardless of how well intended.

As far as your statement that those who put the onus on government "for curbing greed and giving to the poor, tend to personally be the least charitable among us." I ask for CFR, please.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

What I disagreed with is your proposition that treating people unequally is treating them them same. To me, that proposition is logically self-contradictory.

It depends on what you're thinking of as "equally" or "the same". God treats all of us equally by treating all of us justly and fairly, even though we don't all receive the same things at every step in the process. If some of us need an apple and others of us need a banana to satisfy our current needs, then he'll give to some an apple and to others a banana and all the while he'll be treating us all equally and the same. Not because apples are the same exact things as bananas, though, but because what we'll be getting will satisify our current needs.

I also disagree with your proposition that we should be striving for equality. If the goal was equality, then using my previous example, it would be much simpler to equalize at 3 ( 3+0=3 and 6-3=3) rather than 10 (3+7=10 and 6+4=10) because that would only require a movement of -3 for both to equal 3 whereas it would require a movement of 7 and 4 to equalize at 10. And, unfortunately, as explained earlier, when equality is the goal, the tendency is to equalize down rather than up. To me, that is banal.

Consider 10 to be the state of perfection, where all of us are like our Father in heaven. He's not going to recommend that we settle for a 3 or even a 9, as if he would lower his standards. If we're at level 3 he'll give us what we need to make it to level 10, unless we really don't want it. At that point we wouldn't become equal because of our own choices, though, rather than because he wouldn't give us what it would take for us to make it. And even then he'll be giving us what we need from where we are so that those at level 3 will get the value of 7 while those at 8 will get the value of 2 to make it to level 10.

[wenglund]

It depends on what you're thinking of as "equally" or "the same". God treats all of us equally by treating all of us justly and fairly, even though we don't all receive the same things at every step in the process. If some of us need an apple and others of us need a banana to satisfy our current needs, then he'll give to some an apple and to others a banana and all the while he'll be treating us all equally and the same. Not because apples are the same exact things as bananas, though, but because what we'll be getting will satisify our current needs.

Consider 10 to be the state of perfection, where all of us are like our Father in heaven. He's not going to recommend that we settle for a 3 or even a 9, as if he would lower his standards. If we're at level 3 he'll give us what we need to make it to level 10, unless we really don't want it. At that point we wouldn't become equal because of our own choices, though, rather than because he wouldn't give us what it would take for us to make it. And even then he'll be giving us what we need from where we are so that those at level 3 will get the value of 7 while those at 8 will get the value of 2 to make it to level 10.

I agree with most everything you said. My only notable hang-up is your use of the word "equal" and its cognates. It differs from how I am using the word.

However, the important thing is that I understand what you mean, and for the most part I agree with your meaning. My only hesitation may be with your believing that justice and fairness ("equality") may be the end objective, whereas I think the end is for us to become like Christ. To me, justice and fairness are simply one of many mechanism involved in achieving the end that is Christ. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

I agree with most everything you said. My only notable hang-up is your use of the word "equal" and its cognates. It differs from how I am using the word.

However, the important thing is that I understand what you mean, and for the most part I agree with your meaning. My only hesitation may be with your believing that justice and fairness ("equality") may be the end objective, whereas I think the end is for us to become like Christ. To me, justice and fairness are simply one of many mechanism involved in achieving the end that is Christ. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree that justice and fairness are included in his work with us, and I had already covered the idea that our Father's goal is to help us become like he is, unless we don't really want to, which is why I didn't go into it a whole lot, again.

At least you understood what I meant a little bit. Now I'm wondering if you can see that equality doesn't lead to banality unless that is a goal someone is striving for, and even then those who strive for that are equal only to the others who do.

[wenglund]

At least you understood what I meant a little bit. Now I'm wondering if you can see that equality doesn't lead to banality unless that is a goal someone is striving for, and even then those who strive for that are equal only to the others who do.

Yes (at least in terms of what you mean by the word "equality"). However, as I use the word, I don't. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bcuzbcuz]

Once the nation collapses, then fewer people, if any, will be able to afford medical treatment. In other words, it is banal to take actions that may likely cause the nation to end up far worse off than before the action--regardless of how well intended.

http://www.realclear...iberal_giv.html

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I've lived 27 of my adult years in Canada and 22 in Sweden. Medicines are subsidized and cheaper in both places than in the US. Same meds, same manufacturer, lower price. (That's why pensioners in the US take "medicine trips" to Canada) Surgery and doctors don't cost in Canada or Sweden (both countries have different policies for elective surgery). Neither country is bankrupt because of their medical plans.

Since medicine costs and medical services are already outrageously priced in the US, then maybe there is no rescuing the system. The article you quoted also thinks that medicare will cause a complete failure and breakdown of the system. Maybe that is true. I guess you're right, there is no equality...at least between countries.

My heart goes out to you and yours who are put into situations where neither insurance nor money is available for needed medical care. It shouldn't be that way.

[wenglund]

I've lived 27 of my adult years in Canada and 22 in Sweden. Medicines are subsidized and cheaper in both places than in the US. Same meds, same manufacturer, lower price. (That's why pensioners in the US take "medicine trips" to Canada) Surgery and doctors don't cost in Canada or Sweden (both countries have different policies for elective surgery). Neither country is bankrupt because of their medical plans.

Since medicine costs and medical services are already outrageously priced in the US, then maybe there is no rescuing the system. The article you quoted also thinks that medicare will cause a complete failure and breakdown of the system. Maybe that is true. I guess you're right, there is no equality...at least between countries.

Yes...there is a lot that is not equal between the countries well beyond simplistic overviews of their respective health care and economic situations. Be that as it may, it doesn't speak to the question of whether it make sense or not to work towards equality--which is the topic of the thread.

My heart goes out to you and yours who are put into situations where neither insurance nor money is available for needed medical care. It shouldn't be that way.

I appreciate the kind sentiments, though they weren't necessary. I am not begrudging my situation, and I don't view myself as any worse off or deserving of anything than more than what my pioneer ancestors faced. I figure that if they can manage well enough without a nanny state, I can too. And, while things are not ideal, I prefer the way things were in my country four years ago rather than where they are headed today, but since it is out of my hands, I am determined to be fine nevertheless. Again, though, this is beside the point of the thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Yes...there is a lot that is not equal between the countries well beyond simplistic overviews of their respective health care and economic situations. Be that as it may, it doesn't speak to the question of whether it make sense or not to work towards equality--which is the topic of the thread.

It would make sense to work toward equality if equality was the best condition possible... a 10, so to speak. Anything less would not be as good, even if everyone were equal at a lower level.

So then the question becomes: How do we make it to that level where we all can be equal, at level 10?

Would it be best for one person or a minority to make it all the way there and then, at his pleasure, reach down to help someone at a lower level? Would that be the best way to go about it, with people at all levels under 10 coexisting together with each of them struggling to make it on their own, independently? Or would it be best for all to work together, with people at all levels helping each other to make it? And how much help would be best to give? Should a 10 give so much that he's no longer at level 10 anymore? Who would be a 10 then, if he did? Would that swtich be the best way to go about it, with people alternating between level 10 and lower levels? Or would it be best to stabilize at some point and from that point grow together all the way to level 10?

In a world with so many resources which God has provided for our use and enjoyment, I think it's a really sad that some people are at level 1 or 2 when so many other people are at level 10, especially when so many at level 10 can give so much and still be at level 10 because they have that much in excess.

[wenglund]

It would make sense to work toward equality if equality was the best condition possible... a 10, so to speak.

We keep going around and around on this. To me, it would make sense to work towards 10 rather than towards equality, since equality can be achieved at any level. To you, it makes sense to work towards equality if and only if equality is at 10. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

We keep going around and around on this. To me, it would make sense to work towards 10 rather than towards equality, since equality can be achieved at any level. To you, it makes sense to work towards equality if and only if equality is at 10. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't mind going around and around on this as long as at some point we find a nice equilibrium. How about you?

I favor trying to do both at the same time, working towards level 10 and equality together with others, because I don't want to leave someone behind at some lower level. That's why I try to be charitable, to the extent that I can be. I really don't want to be at level 10 while someone is struggling along at level 1 or 2, even though it slows me down some, in some ways, to help others.

Not everybody seems to be as interested in getting to level 10 as I am, though, so sometimes I have to forge ahead without them while they settle for some lower level, but still I'd rather get to level 10 with all other people who want to get there with me, and I actually feel sad for other people when they don't get to enjoy as much out of life as I do.

But, as you say, to each their own. I suppose for me my "own" are all the ones who want to have all that I want out of life, regardless of how long it takes all of us to make it to that point as equals.

[wenglund]

I don't mind going around and around on this as long as at some point we find a nice equilibrium. How about you?

I favor trying to do both at the same time, working towards level 10 and equality together with others, because I don't want to leave someone behind at some lower level. That's why I try to be charitable, to the extent that I can be. I really don't want to be at level 10 while someone is struggling along at level 1 or 2, even though it slows me down some, in some ways, to help others.

Not everybody seems to be as interested in getting to level 10 as I am, though, so sometimes I have to forge ahead without them while they settle for some lower level, but still I'd rather get to level 10 with all other people who want to get there with me, and I actually feel sad for other people when they don't get to enjoy as much out of life as I do.

But, as you say, to each their own. I suppose for me my "own" are all the ones who want to have all that I want out of life, regardless of how long it takes all of us to make it to that point as equals.

I don't mind going around and around either if it eventually gets us somewhere better than where we started. I think it has (I have learned from you), though I think I may have finally maxed out on your's and my exchange. I appreciate the ride.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 11, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

20 There is a ^alaw, irrevocably decreed in ^bheaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all ^cblessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any ^ablessing from God, it is by ^bobedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

(D&C 130:20-21)

Note that this passage doesn't say, "regardless of obedience, God will bless you equally."

Note also that the objective of the law is "blessings" rather than "equality."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same ^aoffice:

5 So we, being many, are ^aone ^bbody in Christ, and every one members one of another.

6 Having then gifts differing according to the ^agrace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of ^bfaith; (Romans 12:4-6)

Note that according to God's grace we AREN'T equal in office and gifts. Paul goes on to explain elsewhere:

4 Now there are diversities of ^agifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the ^aSpirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is ^agiven by the ^bSpirit the ^cword of ^dwisdom; to another the word of ^eknowledge by the same Spirit;

9 To another ^afaith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of ^bhealing by the same Spirit;

10 To another the working of ^amiracles; to another ^bprophecy; to another ^cdiscerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of ^dtongues:

11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one ^abody, whether we be Jews or ^bGentiles, whether we be ^cbond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the ^ahead to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be ^amore feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same ^acare one for another.

26 And whether one member ^asuffer, all the members ^bsuffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of ^aChrist, and ^bmembers in particular. (1 Cor. 12: 1-27}

Again, not all of us are metaphorically heads or hearts or eyes or feet. We are not equally the same body parts. This makes sense since a body, by design, is made up of different parts. It would be banal for a body to be comprised of only feet (equality may lead to banality).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 13, 2013 by wenglund

[bcuzbcuz]

a body to be comprised of only feet (equality may lead to banality).

I like the idea of a body only being made of feet. We would be truly equal 'cuz no one would be getting ahead.

[wenglund]

I like the idea of a body only being made of feet. We would be truly equal 'cuz no one would be getting ahead.

That was heartlessly and mindlessly funny, though the "feet-only" body idea needs to be given the boots. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 13, 2013 by wenglund

[DH]

IMO, if you think equality is irrelevant, you think the Gospel is irrelevant. Read the Scriptures, for heaven's sake!

Of course, you can always redefine equality to mean something bad and oppose it on those grounds. Or you can try doing something constructive and discuss ways we can make true equality happen, as the prophets urge us to.

Edited March 13, 2013 by DH

[wenglund]

IMO, if you think equality is irrelevant, you think the Gospel is irrelevant. Read the Scriptures, for heaven's sake!

I didn't say that equality was irrelevant per se. Read and comprehend what I actually said, for heaven sakes!.

Of course, you can always redefine equality to mean something bad and oppose it on those grounds. Or you can try doing something constructive and discuss ways we can make true equality happen, as the prophets urge us to.

I am not redefining equality. Nor is equality the thrust of what the prophets have urged us to do--as I have been carefully and thoughtfully demonstrating USING THE SCRIPTURES.

What I am trying to counter is the godless obsession with equality that tends to result in banality, which seems to be contrary to the mind and will of God. Wake up!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-.