tuwix
26th March 2013, 10:26
I have found a blog whose author claims talking with God. I don't want to discuss does God exist or not because it doesn't really make sense. I know what Marx said about religions too. But this God seems to be quite different. I'll quote him a little bit:
“I am interested in what the governments they have? Is there division to states? Are there any wars between them?
And how do you think? Can the civilizations whose nations are fighting with each other deserve to be called highly developed?
No, in my opinion.
Then you answered your question. Those civilizations live with no division on states. All nations (if there are, because there are civilizations which contains merely one race) live with no divisions in union.
And what with political system there?
There is not any kind of political system. There is something you can call a civilization model. And it is the same model used by almost all developed civilizations.
Then how can we compare it with what we have on Earth? How can we compare it with what we know?
Perhaps you will be surprised or will not, but others will be surprised for sure. The civilization model is close to guidelines of your communism that is eradicated so much by your majority and which is the natural direction of development. If you do not understand it in proper time, then you will not grow properly. You will direct yourself to the self-extermination.”
http://touchoftheabsolute.blog.com/2009/05/30/a-conversation-with-god-god-loves-a-communism/
Tell me how those civilizations eliminated the problem of money existence?
The most of them should not eliminate it at all because it did not exist at all. So it was eliminated naturally. Others ones eliminated it by understanding that natural resources of planet where civilization lives are common good which is given to them to exploit. As no intelligent being cannot be a property of other one, as all natural goods cannot be a property of someone and cannot be traded.
Can you explain how natural resources are common good? Does it mean they are property of nobody?
No. They are not a property of nobody. They are common. It means they are a property of everyone as well, as your air. You have free air at least. It is worse in case of water. You must pay for it. And it is not right because water is indispensible to live and you should not pay for it as well as for air.”
http://touchoftheabsolute.blog.com/2009/06/06/the-new-october-conversation-with-god-about-sex-and-money-in-enlightened-civilizations/
“Hello. Today I want to talk about communism that is your the favourite most political system.
*
I have no taste in this matter. This is the system most frequently found in the universe. Even not well wishing you civilizations either do not have money. The money are a terrestrial invention. This is perceived as a great absurdity in the universe changing products for small colourful paper.
*
But according to the earth communists, communism is not just a lack of money but also a lack of ownership.
*
Yes, property is a self-service concept of civilization and is very commonly used there. The property indicates material values. People who want to develop more material have property.”
http://touchoftheabsolute.blog.com/2011/08/13/the-conversation-with-god-about-communism/
“Pierre Proudhon in his work “What is Property?” States that a property comes from theft. What do you think about that?
*
This is a general statement and like all of them is not true. The truth is that some property comes from theft but there is a property that is not from theft. All generalizations are dangerous, because they may not be truthful. If someone takes over an area of nobody, this is not a robbery. But if the state takes over such territory and ordered to pay for it, this is a steal. The definition of theft, you see, is liquid.
*
Can you clarify more?
*
Well. If the state owns the land, if it is only a caretaker of land, not a robbery. Caring for the earth means that claims the earth and every citizen who wants to use it can do so without paying and take a lot of land so he needs. The state does not prohibit it and only logs its activity. If that state limits a territory to citizens, then you can say that all land it controls is stolen.
*
Do not you agree with that statement of Proudhon?
*
No. Because not everything comes from theft. Primitive people did not steal the land because of taking it from nobody.”
http://touchoftheabsolute.blog.com/2013/03/09/the-conversation-with-god-on-property/
Then what do you think about that?
“I am interested in what the governments they have? Is there division to states? Are there any wars between them?
And how do you think? Can the civilizations whose nations are fighting with each other deserve to be called highly developed?
No, in my opinion.
Then you answered your question. Those civilizations live with no division on states. All nations (if there are, because there are civilizations which contains merely one race) live with no divisions in union.
And what with political system there?
There is not any kind of political system. There is something you can call a civilization model. And it is the same model used by almost all developed civilizations.
Then how can we compare it with what we have on Earth? How can we compare it with what we know?
Perhaps you will be surprised or will not, but others will be surprised for sure. The civilization model is close to guidelines of your communism that is eradicated so much by your majority and which is the natural direction of development. If you do not understand it in proper time, then you will not grow properly. You will direct yourself to the self-extermination.”
http://touchoftheabsolute.blog.com/2009/05/30/a-conversation-with-god-god-loves-a-communism/
Tell me how those civilizations eliminated the problem of money existence?
The most of them should not eliminate it at all because it did not exist at all. So it was eliminated naturally. Others ones eliminated it by understanding that natural resources of planet where civilization lives are common good which is given to them to exploit. As no intelligent being cannot be a property of other one, as all natural goods cannot be a property of someone and cannot be traded.
Can you explain how natural resources are common good? Does it mean they are property of nobody?
No. They are not a property of nobody. They are common. It means they are a property of everyone as well, as your air. You have free air at least. It is worse in case of water. You must pay for it. And it is not right because water is indispensible to live and you should not pay for it as well as for air.”
http://touchoftheabsolute.blog.com/2009/06/06/the-new-october-conversation-with-god-about-sex-and-money-in-enlightened-civilizations/
“Hello. Today I want to talk about communism that is your the favourite most political system.
*
I have no taste in this matter. This is the system most frequently found in the universe. Even not well wishing you civilizations either do not have money. The money are a terrestrial invention. This is perceived as a great absurdity in the universe changing products for small colourful paper.
*
But according to the earth communists, communism is not just a lack of money but also a lack of ownership.
*
Yes, property is a self-service concept of civilization and is very commonly used there. The property indicates material values. People who want to develop more material have property.”
http://touchoftheabsolute.blog.com/2011/08/13/the-conversation-with-god-about-communism/
“Pierre Proudhon in his work “What is Property?” States that a property comes from theft. What do you think about that?
*
This is a general statement and like all of them is not true. The truth is that some property comes from theft but there is a property that is not from theft. All generalizations are dangerous, because they may not be truthful. If someone takes over an area of nobody, this is not a robbery. But if the state takes over such territory and ordered to pay for it, this is a steal. The definition of theft, you see, is liquid.
*
Can you clarify more?
*
Well. If the state owns the land, if it is only a caretaker of land, not a robbery. Caring for the earth means that claims the earth and every citizen who wants to use it can do so without paying and take a lot of land so he needs. The state does not prohibit it and only logs its activity. If that state limits a territory to citizens, then you can say that all land it controls is stolen.
*
Do not you agree with that statement of Proudhon?
*
No. Because not everything comes from theft. Primitive people did not steal the land because of taking it from nobody.”
http://touchoftheabsolute.blog.com/2013/03/09/the-conversation-with-god-on-property/
Then what do you think about that?