What people who read Marx (long before 1917) presumably had in mind were medieval communes. Groups of peasants, or tradesmen, or the inhabitants of a town or parish, forming associations to protect themselves. That is fundamentally Marxism; that an individual will always be weak within an economic system; that they need to realise their collective strength. — Londoner

In today's terms it would equate to workers co-operatives. The state's role would be provide legal frameworks for them to operate fairly.
This has never been seriously tried on a wide scale. Within the current capitalist system companies would be encouraged to give workers shares as part of their wages, until the whole was in the hands of the workers. This could really incentivise productivity if workers know they are working for their own benefit and not some fat prick living in Switzerland.

They paid warlord/aristocrats for protection. That is not Marxism. Marxism is a passive wait for history to reveal its purpose. — frank

No it is not. Marx and his followers have always enjoined the class struggle.

Lip-syncers all. Sad. — Bitter Crank

Spoken like a true Trumper. It's so sad, really sad. In fact that is the mosted sadness of all.

Its funny, he's accusing me of the very things he himself is guilty of. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

This is the complete converse of reality.

Goodnight, God bless, and peace be with you. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Please do not use god in this way again to me.

↪charleton
"Definitive" is not the same as "definitional." I agree that it's pretty definitive that man is mortal (again, at least at present), but I disagree that that implies that man is thereby mortal by definition. There can be accidental features or properties which apply to every member of a class. — Arkady

Off topic and overly pedantic. I see no value in pursuing this line of enquiry.

Peace be with you, and may God guide us all to the straight path, and make us those who seek truth. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

If god is all powerful then what use is there asking this? He's going to do it his way whatever you say.

Man is mortal tautological IF man is mortal is definitive. — charleton

it's late!
G'Night

There is NO risk for God and neither is the event unpredictable if he is an All Knowing Being. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

You fail to understand the regard of that the author of Job, had of god. You are just shoe-horning your own view of god where is does not fit.

The author of Job quite clearly had a completely different apprehension of God to you. It is a view of god far more common in the ancient world unhindered by Augustine's omni-everything view, which is simply NOT present in the OT at all.

The God of the OT is capricious, vengeful, violent and by modern standards a pretty evil genocidal maniac giving favours to the Jewish race, that your Creed characterises as "Apes"

So, God might not be all Good, is that what you are suggesting? There are plenty of interpretations and that tends to get brought up quite often with the problem of evil (suffering). — Posty McPostface

No I'm not suggesting. The Book of Job insists upon it.

Practical impossibilities aside, this says nothing about the logical impossibility of an immortal man, — Arkady

EDIT: in any event, this is all rather beside the point, as what is at issue here is the derivation of non-tautological premises from tautologies, not the derivation of tautologies from tautologies. — Arkady

Man is mortal is tautological is man is mortal is definitive. And since none are claiming there are immortal men, then the point is mute.
Whatever your 'in any event' is, may I remind you of the thread title???

I'm a muslim, and can find plenty that I think is wrong with the bible — Mr Phil O'Sophy

The Koran is much worst for inaccuracies, contradictions, hatred and immorality.
What is the message of the OT?? The message that you want to characterise positively?

That’s an egregious characature of what I said. — Noble Dust

It's not even a caricature. You said not to take it literally. But this is just an excuse to avoid inferring the capricious nature of god, which was most likely the author's intention.

Indeed, not interpreting scripture in a literal manner does just that because it naturally takes into account the unavoidable anthropomorphism of ancient religious texts. — Noble Dust

If it says nothing about God at all why bother. Or do you like to cherry pick?

It doesn’t make sense to claim that an all knowing all powerful God would make a bet because that presupposes — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Duh. I'm not claiming that. The Bible is.

We also know that Novichok was created in the USSR between the 1970-90s. It's inventors name is Vil Mirzayanov who currently lives in the US. So we know that the Russians had access to this nerve agent. But we also know that Britain.... — René Descartes

Justeight miles away from the incident at Porton Down (defence facility) are quantities of ALL know chemical weapons where they are in continual research, ostensible for the fabrication of antidotes.

robably the same organisation that put the explosives in the Twin Towers and orchestrated the JFK killing. — Wayfarer

No. These are vastly different cases.

The question is, why use something that is clearly going to implicate Russia? — Wayfarer

This is a valid question.

You say those who promote scripture are guilty by association. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

The devout propagate the idea that genocide misogyny and rape are okay by propagating the Bible as the word of God.
What do you not understand by this?

Again, respond to my argument with at least a fraction of the effort I — Noble Dust

Since by your own admission you reject any use the Bible might have in giving us an insight into gods moral guidance I cant see what your argument is for.
If you want to use the book as an example to uncover what the writer thought about god, then that would be more interesting.
But I fail to see what use it is, if you ignore anything we can learn about the portrayed character of god, to conclude any moral insights. Moral insights from a wager between god and his buddy Satan which ignore the basic facts of the scenario are worthless.

You just confirmed and denied my claim with the same quote lol — Mr Phil O'Sophy

You are not paying attention.

Millions misinterpreting scripture says nothing about my argument, and the argument isn’t original either; it’s well known. Try again. — Noble Dust

What that you find it boring?? What sort of argument is that?

Some men alive today may well be rendered immortal by means of technological progress. — Arkady

The verification of immortality is a practical impossibility. Since immortality can only be verified at the end of time - and the end of time would make a man mortal by definition.
Think this over if it does not make sense.
Immortality is definitively impossible.

So every devout person is guilty of these crimes? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

That is not what I said. You love to put words into another's mouth. They call that a straw man.
But they are guilty by association if they continue to promote Scripture, yes.

Respond to my counter argument that you’re interpreting scripture literally rather than metaphorically just like the Christians you critique, and I’ll then respond to your points. — Noble Dust

It's not a counter argument of any strength, since millions have taken the Bible as their example for thousands of years.

Your flaw is that you talk in terms of God acting as though he is in need of something.
— Mr Phil O'Sophy — charleton

↪charleton very presumptuous of you. I’m not a Christian. I have read it and you’re twisting the words to suit your argument. It doesn’t make sense to claim that an all knowing all powerful God would make a bet because that presupposes that there is a prize for God to win if the bet comes in his favour. But God is the creator of all things, all things come from him and return to him. There is nothing to win that doesn’t already belong to God. Satan challenges God out of arrogance and pride and he fails. Can hardly call it a bet if you already know the outcome and have full control over its results. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Please read the top quote!! I sometimes despair of the treacle I have to wade through to get some sense in here. YOU, accused ME of a flaw, when what I said is an accurate account of what it says in the Bible. If anything is flawed it is, then, the Bible's absurd story of Job, the writers having fallen into the same error. OR those that wrote this section of the book did not share your view of God! God wagers with Satan, who oddly in this book is not his enemy, but his 'servant', exhorted to do God's dirty work and bring down suffering upon an innocent man.

At no point did I say you were a Christian. But if this is your god either way you can keep him.

The inelegant design examples remind me of the way overly-collaborative projects turn out over time. This happens a lot in administration. Lots of things are designed bottom up like that. — Roke

Yes. design by committee is one valid conclusion of many living examples. And if it were not for the evolutionary time-frame, one might have to conclude we were designed by 20-30 Gods who came back from a heavy pub lunch in which much wine was quaffed.

It is? How? There are by definition no immortal men? — Arkady

Yes "men are mortal".

Hmmm... You don't seem to have anything constructive to add to this thread at this point. Perhaps you would consider reading the two books I mentioned above? Both of them point to the lack of an objective physical reality. — CasKev

I not claiming to the contrary.

I still prefer the God of the Old Testament. You know keeping it real and all? — Posty McPostface

Misogynism, Terroism and Genocide perfect examples for the world of the devout.

It’s such an old and uninteresting argument, to be honest with you. — Noble Dust

Only because you have failed to see its importance.
What God would allow millions of believers for thousands of years to follow those writing and the examples within in His name?
How would you characterise such a God?
And if we cannot learn about God from the Bible why read it at all?

God is barbaric — Noble Dust

Well you got that right at least.

Your flaw is that you talk in terms of God acting as though he is in need of something. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

No - that's the Bible doing that. Read it again!
More evidence that atheists know their Bible with more detail than the believer.

Vicissitudes is a cracker of a word.

I regard the calumnies I have to suffer to read are amongst the worse of the Vicissitudes encountered on this Forum.

Nothing happens accidentally.
I would go so far as to suggest that the poison was administered by the UK, Israel, or any other player wishing to discredit Moscow.
But that aside, why THIS attack NOW is splashed all over the media whilst other similar instances have been suppressed. seems obvious enough

Although law doesn't necessarily equate to morality. — René Descartes

Law is the practical outcome of the moral case. A thing legal is taken to be moral.

↪charleton you’ve completely misunderstood the entire point. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I'm still waiting for your claim of objective morality to be substantiated.
Do you think it was moral of God to give Lot a lifetime of torture just to win a bet with Satan?

How does that particular interpretation of a scripture prove that idea? I’m guessing you don’t actually place that much stock in scripture to give it so much power. — Noble Dust

What did not throw down on Lot FOR A BET with Satan? It's like you've not understood the most basic fact of the story!

The Tories have consistently blocked further investigation into the death of Litvinjenko, assassinated for his pro-democracy and -press freedoms.
But why the fuss over this criminal, in it for the cash and thrills?
The Russians have been bumping of their traitorous spies for decades, stories buried, little notice taken.
The Tories have received £800k recently from high level Russians whilst investigations into the dubious money laundering activities have been quashed.
So why THIS ONE. or Why now?

The Tories are in desperate need of an enemy to secure their power.
The Tories are continuing to pursue evil and unpopular policies. This week ending free school meals for thousands of hungry English children whilst increasing the provision for those in N. Ireland, whose DUP they utterly rely on for their Parliamentary Majority. The media are all but silent on this issue.

Why is this even Newsworthy???

17 people in my own city died last year as a direct result of homelessness. The media are silent. Yet one criminal gets popped by his own government and all hell breaks loose?

This is not a conspiracy. It reminds me of the dodgy dossier in the lead up to the Iraq war.

Is that an accurate description of communism? — Purple Pond

No.

Marx and Engles would have been horrified to have seen Stalin and Mao; how "communism" had been hijacked by a system of State Capitalism.

I love the book of Job. It's personally my favourite book of the bible. — René Descartes

If I ever need reminding how confused and contradictory is the Bible then I remind myself of Job.
Satan is the servant of God, or is he the evil fallen angel the sworn enemy of god?
Is god kind and beneficent, or is he mean minded and capricious?

He didn’t curse God and die, but endured his suffering, — Noble Dust

Proving humans are greater beings than gods, which accords with Homer so well.
Man being moral having everything to loose suffers in dignity, whilst the tardy, arrogant and capricious gods torture taunt and dish out arbitrary punishments on humans.