Is the Christian religion by nature socialistic?

[uscitizen]

Kinda seems that way to me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Kinda seems that way to me.

Leo XIII criticized to Europe's early Marxist movement, predicting that "The Socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, endeavor to destroy private property, and maintain that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State... But their proposals are so clearly futile for all practical purposes, that if they were carried out the working man himself would be among the first to suffer."

He extends his comments noting that the socialists "act against natural justice and threaten the very existence of family life. And such interference... is quite certain to... subject [all citizens] to odious and intolerable slavery... Ideal equality--of which so much is said--would, in reality, be the leveling down of all to the same condition of misery and dis-honor.

Thus it is clear that the main tenet of Socialism, the community of goods, must be utterly rejected; for it would injure those whom it is intended to benefit, it would be contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and it would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth." One can only shudder at the cost in human lives and misery that mankind has suffered for not affording greater attention to these words at the time.

From Michael Novak's "Catholic Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Kinda seems that way to me.

It does?

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Doesn't to me, I guess one of has a problem understand the difference between people using their wealth to help others and people not having any wealth at all because everything is owned by everyone. I wonder which of us has that problem.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not in the least.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The two philosophies do have many similarities. Both place the highest value on altruism and selflessness and both consider money an evil necessity (well, to be sure, the Marxist idea of utopia, from my understanding, requires no form of currency). Both philosophies reject the value of self-interested motivation, and both demand that each person help their fellow human before themselves.

Where the idealogies split seems to be at the fundamental level of implementation. The whole idea of living a Christian life is that God gave you free will and allows you to choose to live well and reap the rewards in the hereafter, or choose not to live well and be punished in the afterlife. Socialism, conversely, seeks to coerce society as a whole, via the power of government (or society, or "the people", or whatever label you prefer) to live in a financially selfless manner in that the fruits of no man's labor are there's alone, but are shared by society as a whole.

I think the primary difference is the presence of an afterlife concept. Where Christianity has the luxury of being able to reward or punish outside of this life, no coercion of the living is necessarily required to enforce the desired behaviors. With socialism, no afterlife is officially recognized, and so the rewards and punishments have to deal with the living. Thus the standard government responses to criminal activity loom for those who won't go along with the system, and the rewards are (in a working socialism) that all persons' basic needs will be met and all persons, by default, will live a life that people of like philosophy consider morally just.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

there is nothing in any book of the bible that I am aware of that mandates the government control of the means of production.

 

[California Girl]

Kinda seems that way to me.

It's the other way around. The roots of socialism are based in Christianity.

However, the Church has condemned the 'progressive socialist movement' (that's pretty much the Democrats) for its replacement of God with secular greed.

 

[theliq]

Kinda seems that way to me.

Leo XIII criticized to Europe's early Marxist movement, predicting that "The Socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, endeavor to destroy private property, and maintain that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State... But their proposals are so clearly futile for all practical purposes, that if they were carried out the working man himself would be among the first to suffer."

He extends his comments noting that the socialists "act against natural justice and threaten the very existence of family life. And such interference... is quite certain to... subject [all citizens] to odious and intolerable slavery... Ideal equality--of which so much is said--would, in reality, be the leveling down of all to the same condition of misery and dis-honor.

Thus it is clear that the main tenet of Socialism, the community of goods, must be utterly rejected; for it would injure those whom it is intended to benefit, it would be contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and it would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth." One can only shudder at the cost in human lives and misery that mankind has suffered for not affording greater attention to these words at the time.

From Michael Novak's "Catholic Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism"

I think I'm RIGHT in saying that LEO was PRO-NAZI..enough SAID.tl

 

[daveman]

Is the Christian religion by nature socialistic?
Kinda seems that way to me.

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

2 Thessalonians 3:10
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)​

Yeah, not so much.

 

[theliq]

Kinda seems that way to me.

It's the other way around. The roots of socialism are based in Christianity.

However, the Church has condemned the 'progressive socialist movement' (that's pretty much the Democrats) for its replacement of God with secular greed.

There is something horribly inane about you and your comments......"the Democrats"...."Replacement of GOD with secular GREED"

You could make the same arguement about the "Church" itself and/or Republicans....You need educating because by your myopic conservative thought and negative attitude towards everything and everyone,shows how shallow you are as a person. I find you totally self opinionated and totally repugnant...TOTALLY.

You are uneducated.

I'm being nice today,so think yourself lucky.tl "always keeping the bastards honest"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The two philosophies do have many similarities. Both place the highest value on altruism and selflessness and both consider money an evil necessity (well, to be sure, the Marxist idea of utopia, from my understanding, requires no form of currency). Both philosophies reject the value of self-interested motivation, and both demand that each person help their fellow human before themselves.

Where the idealogies split seems to be at the fundamental level of implementation. The whole idea of living a Christian life is that God gave you free will and allows you to choose to live well and reap the rewards in the hereafter, or choose not to live well and be punished in the afterlife. Socialism, conversely, seeks to coerce society as a whole, via the power of government (or society, or "the people", or whatever label you prefer) to live in a financially selfless manner in that the fruits of no man's labor are there's alone, but are shared by society as a whole.

I think the primary difference is the presence of an afterlife concept. Where Christianity has the luxury of being able to reward or punish outside of this life, no coercion of the living is necessarily required to enforce the desired behaviors. With socialism, no afterlife is officially recognized, and so the rewards and punishments have to deal with the living. Thus the standard government responses to criminal activity loom for those who won't go along with the system, and the rewards are (in a working socialism) that all persons' basic needs will be met and all persons, by default, will live a life that people of like philosophy consider morally just.

What? Socialism has nothing to do with either altruism or selflessness, it is a economic theory that focuses on common ownership of the companies that drive the economy. It is not a philosophy, nor does it care about morals, it is about nothing but economics.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Kinda seems that way to me.

It's the other way around. The roots of socialism are based in Christianity.

However, the Church has condemned the 'progressive socialist movement' (that's pretty much the Democrats) for its replacement of God with secular greed.

I'm not a history expert, and I know even less of European history (outside of them two big wars we tagged in on), but it does seem likely to me that the socialist ideals of altruism and self sacrifice were derived from the influence of spirituality, most likely Christianity given its prominence in Europe during the years leading up to the philosophy's conception. It's always seemed to me that philosophy is essentially what you'd have if you took the very base Christian ideals and eliminated anything spiritual from the program, but I'm sure there's some holes in that theory.

Anyway, where I disagree is that socialists or democrats replaced God with secular greed. Both groups view material greed as something of a cardinal sin. If anything, socialists and further left leaning secular democrats have replaced God with "the people", or society, or the good of the collective, pick your terminology. Just as God is the final arbiter of good and evil for a Christian, the greater good and the well being/will of the majority are the final arbiters of right and wrong for the Marxist.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The two philosophies do have many similarities. Both place the highest value on altruism and selflessness and both consider money an evil necessity (well, to be sure, the Marxist idea of utopia, from my understanding, requires no form of currency). Both philosophies reject the value of self-interested motivation, and both demand that each person help their fellow human before themselves.

Where the idealogies split seems to be at the fundamental level of implementation. The whole idea of living a Christian life is that God gave you free will and allows you to choose to live well and reap the rewards in the hereafter, or choose not to live well and be punished in the afterlife. Socialism, conversely, seeks to coerce society as a whole, via the power of government (or society, or "the people", or whatever label you prefer) to live in a financially selfless manner in that the fruits of no man's labor are there's alone, but are shared by society as a whole.

I think the primary difference is the presence of an afterlife concept. Where Christianity has the luxury of being able to reward or punish outside of this life, no coercion of the living is necessarily required to enforce the desired behaviors. With socialism, no afterlife is officially recognized, and so the rewards and punishments have to deal with the living. Thus the standard government responses to criminal activity loom for those who won't go along with the system, and the rewards are (in a working socialism) that all persons' basic needs will be met and all persons, by default, will live a life that people of like philosophy consider morally just.

What? Socialism has nothing to do with either altruism or selflessness, it is a economic theory that focuses on common ownership of the companies that drive the economy. It is not a philosophy, nor does it care about morals, it is about nothing but economics.

It's an economic theory, yes, but one that requires people to labor not for their own gain, but for the gain of society as a whole, and for the express purpose that everyone's needs are met. So each individual works to support each other to make sure nobody has to go without. I'm not sure what you'd call that, I'd call it altruism and selflessness becoming legal imperatives.

 

[Peach]

Kinda seems that way to me.

It's the other way around. The roots of socialism are based in Christianity.

However, the Church has condemned the 'progressive socialist movement' (that's pretty much the Democrats) for its replacement of God with secular greed.

I'm not a history expert, and I know even less of European history (outside of them two big wars we tagged in on), but it does seem likely to me that the socialist ideals of altruism and self sacrifice were derived from the influence of spirituality, most likely Christianity given its prominence in Europe during the years leading up to the philosophy's conception. It's always seemed to me that philosophy is essentially what you'd have if you took the very base Christian ideals and eliminated anything spiritual from the program, but I'm sure there's some holes in that theory.

Anyway, where I disagree is that socialists or democrats replaced God with secular greed. Both groups view material greed as something of a cardinal sin. If anything, socialists and further left leaning secular democrats have replaced God with "the people", or society, or the good of the collective, pick your terminology. Just as God is the final arbiter of good and evil for a Christian, the greater good and the well being/will of the majority are the final arbiters of right and wrong for the Marxist.

Marxists nations turn into oligarchies very quickly; the PEOPLE are the BURDEN of the "leaders'.

 

[Avatar4321]

The two philosophies do have many similarities. Both place the highest value on altruism and selflessness and both consider money an evil necessity (well, to be sure, the Marxist idea of utopia, from my understanding, requires no form of currency). Both philosophies reject the value of self-interested motivation, and both demand that each person help their fellow human before themselves.

Where the idealogies split seems to be at the fundamental level of implementation. The whole idea of living a Christian life is that God gave you free will and allows you to choose to live well and reap the rewards in the hereafter, or choose not to live well and be punished in the afterlife. Socialism, conversely, seeks to coerce society as a whole, via the power of government (or society, or "the people", or whatever label you prefer) to live in a financially selfless manner in that the fruits of no man's labor are there's alone, but are shared by society as a whole.

I think the primary difference is the presence of an afterlife concept. Where Christianity has the luxury of being able to reward or punish outside of this life, no coercion of the living is necessarily required to enforce the desired behaviors. With socialism, no afterlife is officially recognized, and so the rewards and punishments have to deal with the living. Thus the standard government responses to criminal activity loom for those who won't go along with the system, and the rewards are (in a working socialism) that all persons' basic needs will be met and all persons, by default, will live a life that people of like philosophy consider morally just.

Socialism/Marxism/Communism/Fascism, whatever form you want to look at of it is not Christianity. Quite the opposite. They are the devils immitations used to decieve those who dont understand the Gospel message.

There is nothing altruistic or selfless about these secular philosophies. Nor does the Gospel teach that money is an evil necessity. Nor does the Gospel teach us to love others more than ourselves, rather it teaches us to love others as we love ourselves.

 

[Avatar4321]

Kinda seems that way to me.

It's the other way around. The roots of socialism are based in Christianity.

However, the Church has condemned the 'progressive socialist movement' (that's pretty much the Democrats) for its replacement of God with secular greed.

There is something horribly inane about you and your comments......"the Democrats"...."Replacement of GOD with secular GREED"

You could make the same arguement about the "Church" itself and/or Republicans....You need educating because by your myopic conservative thought and negative attitude towards everything and everyone,shows how shallow you are as a person. I find you totally self opinionated and totally repugnant...TOTALLY.

You are uneducated.

I'm being nice today,so think yourself lucky.tl "always keeping the bastards honest"

You can disagree with CG all you want. I do from time to time. But she is hardly uneducated.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The two philosophies do have many similarities. Both place the highest value on altruism and selflessness and both consider money an evil necessity (well, to be sure, the Marxist idea of utopia, from my understanding, requires no form of currency). Both philosophies reject the value of self-interested motivation, and both demand that each person help their fellow human before themselves.

Where the idealogies split seems to be at the fundamental level of implementation. The whole idea of living a Christian life is that God gave you free will and allows you to choose to live well and reap the rewards in the hereafter, or choose not to live well and be punished in the afterlife. Socialism, conversely, seeks to coerce society as a whole, via the power of government (or society, or "the people", or whatever label you prefer) to live in a financially selfless manner in that the fruits of no man's labor are there's alone, but are shared by society as a whole.

I think the primary difference is the presence of an afterlife concept. Where Christianity has the luxury of being able to reward or punish outside of this life, no coercion of the living is necessarily required to enforce the desired behaviors. With socialism, no afterlife is officially recognized, and so the rewards and punishments have to deal with the living. Thus the standard government responses to criminal activity loom for those who won't go along with the system, and the rewards are (in a working socialism) that all persons' basic needs will be met and all persons, by default, will live a life that people of like philosophy consider morally just.

What? Socialism has nothing to do with either altruism or selflessness, it is a economic theory that focuses on common ownership of the companies that drive the economy. It is not a philosophy, nor does it care about morals, it is about nothing but economics.

It's an economic theory, yes, but one that requires people to labor not for their own gain, but for the gain of society as a whole, and for the express purpose that everyone's needs are met. So each individual works to support each other to make sure nobody has to go without. I'm not sure what you'd call that, I'd call it altruism and selflessness becoming legal imperatives.

It does not require that unless it is imposed. by the government. People are still able to work for their own gain, it is just the means of production that are commonly owned. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs is not socialism, it is sophism.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's an economic theory, yes, but one that requires people to labor not for their own gain, but for the gain of society as a whole, and for the express purpose that everyone's needs are met. So each individual works to support each other to make sure nobody has to go without. I'm not sure what you'd call that, I'd call it altruism and selflessness becoming legal imperatives.

You don't know what requiring others to labor for someone elses gain and not their own is called? I do. It's called slavery.

 

[sealybobo]

Kinda seems that way to me.

Of course it is. And of course Jesus was a liberal. That's what we've been trying to say for years. Other than being anti abortion, Republicans don't give a shit about life or the poor or anything that Jesus said. The GOP only uses God as a wedge issue to divide us. Fact is, abortion and birth control are necessary evils. But being against abortion was a great idea the GOP came up with to win over middle class voters.

Reagan and Nixon were not anti abortion. Reagan only changed his position to win over the evangelicals.

So today a lot of middle class and poor Americans are voting against their own financial interests because of this one issue. The GOP were smart to take the position they took. Wins them over a lot of voters who care deeply about abortion. Morons I call them.

Same when the GOP used racism and the Southern Strategy and won the entire south. Bunch of white poor ignorant people who vote because of god gays and guns. Brainwashed.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Kinda seems that way to me.

Leo XIII criticized ...
From Michael Novak's "Catholic Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism"

The hierarchy of the church has always been full of pederasts, murderers, and thieves. F()ck em They'd excommunicate Jesus if he decided to ever come down off his cross.