• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reaction score

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • John Maynard Keynes, in opposition to the liberals, showed that governments have the ability not only to combat the effects of recession and depression, but that governments could also provide for the basic needs of its civilian population, what he called liberal socialism. Capitalism only needs to be subjugated under political and social will, so that it serves the interests of society, and not to line the pockets of the rich. Sweden is a perfect example of a social democracy that I greatly admire.
    Well, I reject orthodox Marxism on a number of fronts, most notably the belief of historical materialism and the vilification of all bourgeoisie. The reason social democracy (i.e. democratic socialism) rose to power after the Second World War is that Marxism's predictions failed to materialise. Capitalism's supposed internal contradictions did not lead to its destruction. Under Marxist tenets, the idea that all institutions are owned by the workers is unilaterally support (or in the case of Communism, owned by a centralised state), but one of the main ways a corporation expands its operations is by selling a stake in the corporation, essentially giving the saver (the investor) a percentage of ownership of the capital (i.e. the means of production). I find it somewhat absurd to assert that someone who invests their money, risking their own money, in corporation that has the potential to lead to economic expansion is a parasitic bourgeoisie.
    You do that. I know what you mean about language being limited, but you should be able to find something that describes, more or less, how you feel. There may even be words in other languages that explain it better, like the concept of Brahman, Para-Atman, Tao and so on.

    Writing down your views will enable yourself--and others--to point you in the right direction. :)
    You should definitely check them out, they're both faiths worth checking out, although I get the feeling Taoism may be up your alley. Did you write down your views on paper yet, to see if they lead to you anything specific?
    I can understand what you mean, totally.
    As much as I love the deities of Ásatrú, I don't think it would ever be for me, y'know?

    What I would suggest you do is you sit down and write out--by hand--what you believe in, or at the very least, what you do not believe in. Write your opinion on various forms of the different afterlife concepts, and concepts of God, too. Hopefully you should come away with some form of direction.

    I'd suggest looking at Mahayana, possibly Vajrayana (Tibetan), and Taoism. Have you ever checked out Hinduism and Sikhism?
    Awesome, I have a lot of respect for Taoism.

    I'd suggest you check it out. What do you think of Ásatrú, by the way?
    I think you need to think carefully about your beliefs regarding god/gods and the soul and the afterlife, then it can get a lot easier. Try to find out what you believe. It's easier to write than it is to do though!
    Depending on your religious-views, I'd say check out Theravada, Mahayana, Zen and Judaism. If you're polytheistic then check out Kemetic. Do you believe in one God, no god/s, no gods but god-like beings, many gods, or something else?
    I know what you mean brother; I was seeking until recently.
    Any direction you're going in?
    Oh yeah. ;) That isn't my photo, so I didn't bake those, but I do love a good cupcake. Red Velvet is extra fun.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…