the Biblical Basis for Socialism Is Undeniable, my friends

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
16,389
Reaction score
2,909
Points
280
I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.
You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.
Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?
No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.
But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.
On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.
That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.
I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.
But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.
Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?
Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.
"A", you state your case lucidly and well. Your arguments need to be heard, but hearing doesn't seem to go on very much in current American political dialog. It is almost all shouting and cliché exchange.
We share many similar thoughts and observations, though not all. "Left" and "right" in our culture don't function as meaningful terms anymore, thanks to distortion form all sides. The entire dictionary is nearly obsolete. My positions are mine and what labels people place on them are of no interest to me. "What works?" is what is important to me. This goes with the willingness to try something and the flexibility to change if the results are not what are desired. Overall, attaching to an "ism" looks to be much too limiting and often leads to dreadful excesses. "Eclecticism" is about the only one I could class as acceptable.
The early Christian communities were communistic by today's definitions, but that is not the "Communism" we saw in the 20th century and certainly no endorsement of it. In a basic manner, families are communal, in that those who can (the parents) work and those who need help (the children) receive help until they, too, can contribute. That's fine. Parenting should be a lifting up process ('raising' children). Society can take a lesson from that and help 'raise' the lesser enabled to a point at least closer to self sufficiency.

Calling that "Socialism" is a great way to sabotage what could be progress. At the same time, simple "aid" that only keeps the dependent dependent serves malevolent interests, not human ones.
There is too much fascination with formulaic, simplistic, one-size-fits-all, doctrinarian, polarized approaches. This duality is illusion and will not take us to the best destination, and may easily bring us to the end.

Good post..

Families are communal and depend on each other.. extended families live that social contract.. Conflating that with socialism seems like a stretch to me. Would you imagine that a small church congregation would help each other without being called communists??
There is nothing wrong with any of that, because it's not social control. Families helping each other, is not socialism. There is no social control, or controlling the means of production and distribution.

For example, the head of the family, still has one hundred percent ownership of his wealth and property. He choose to share that wealth with his family, or the community.

But he is not required to, or forced to.

If the father came home, and decided to not share his pay check, there is nothing anyone could do about it.

Socialism involves forcing people to give up control of their own wealth, property, and income. That's one of the key problems with claiming the Bible supports the concept of socialism, is that not one person was forced to share anything with anyone. And there were most certainly people who did not share with everyone, and we know that because Jesus himself was buried in the tomb of a rich man.

Under socialism the rich man would have his wealth confiscated from him, and distributed to those who had not earned it, and there would be no wealthy man's tomb for Jesus to be buried in.
In a Christian, faith based context, the fundamental concept is that everything comes from "God". Egoistic concerns about "owning" and what is "mine" are subsided. The limited and limiting concept of property is mitigated by the force of "God" being generous, so one must also be. Fundamentally, there is a realization that to possess is to be possessed.
We could say that "socialism" demands generosity while lacking the moral force, at least for anyone who is not immersed in the ideology.
In any case, the excesses of "me-my-mine" are responsible for wealth disparity that always brings disaster. Materialism is a killer.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.
You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.
Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?
No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.
But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.
On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.
That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.
I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.
But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.
Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?
Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.
"A", you state your case lucidly and well. Your arguments need to be heard, but hearing doesn't seem to go on very much in current American political dialog. It is almost all shouting and cliché exchange.
We share many similar thoughts and observations, though not all. "Left" and "right" in our culture don't function as meaningful terms anymore, thanks to distortion form all sides. The entire dictionary is nearly obsolete. My positions are mine and what labels people place on them are of no interest to me. "What works?" is what is important to me. This goes with the willingness to try something and the flexibility to change if the results are not what are desired. Overall, attaching to an "ism" looks to be much too limiting and often leads to dreadful excesses. "Eclecticism" is about the only one I could class as acceptable.
The early Christian communities were communistic by today's definitions, but that is not the "Communism" we saw in the 20th century and certainly no endorsement of it. In a basic manner, families are communal, in that those who can (the parents) work and those who need help (the children) receive help until they, too, can contribute. That's fine. Parenting should be a lifting up process ('raising' children). Society can take a lesson from that and help 'raise' the lesser enabled to a point at least closer to self sufficiency.

Calling that "Socialism" is a great way to sabotage what could be progress. At the same time, simple "aid" that only keeps the dependent dependent serves malevolent interests, not human ones.
There is too much fascination with formulaic, simplistic, one-size-fits-all, doctrinarian, polarized approaches. This duality is illusion and will not take us to the best destination, and may easily bring us to the end.

Good post..

Families are communal and depend on each other.. extended families live that social contract.. Conflating that with socialism seems like a stretch to me. Would you imagine that a small church congregation would help each other without being called communists??
There is nothing wrong with any of that, because it's not social control. Families helping each other, is not socialism. There is no social control, or controlling the means of production and distribution.

For example, the head of the family, still has one hundred percent ownership of his wealth and property. He choose to share that wealth with his family, or the community.

But he is not required to, or forced to.

If the father came home, and decided to not share his pay check, there is nothing anyone could do about it.

Socialism involves forcing people to give up control of their own wealth, property, and income. That's one of the key problems with claiming the Bible supports the concept of socialism, is that not one person was forced to share anything with anyone. And there were most certainly people who did not share with everyone, and we know that because Jesus himself was buried in the tomb of a rich man.

Under socialism the rich man would have his wealth confiscated from him, and distributed to those who had not earned it, and there would be no wealthy man's tomb for Jesus to be buried in.
In a Christian, faith based context, the fundamental concept is that everything comes from "God". Egoistic concerns about "owning" and what is "mine" are subsided. The limited and limiting concept of property is mitigated by the force of "God" being generous, so one must also be. Fundamentally, there is a realization that to possess is to be possessed.
We could say that "socialism" demands generosity while lacking the moral force, at least for anyone who is not immersed in the ideology.
In any case, the excesses of "me-my-mine" are responsible for wealth disparity that always brings disaster. Materialism is a killer.
Again, the claim that wealth disparity, and the problem "me-my-mine" always bring disaster, seems to be contradicted by at a minimum, about 200 years of history.

There is no example of any society that eliminated wealth disparity, and was wealthy. Nor is there any example of a system lacking "me-my-mine" that was successful.

As for it being excessive, that's not a quantifiable thing. That's just one person's opinion.

As for the Christian perspective on wealth, I agree completely that fundamentally all Christians understand that everything they have really all belong to G-d. We grasp that, from a religions and eternal perspective, we own nothing. Not even ourselves. In fact, the Bible says that we as individuals, are slaves to the Lord. And by slave, it means literally slave. We were bought with a price, the price of Jesus blood on the cross.

1 Corinthians 6
Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a man can commit is outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.

So while this specifically refers to sexual sins, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, we also understand that it applies to everything else as well, cars, homes, and all wealth.

The problem Christians have with the left-wing interpretation of that concept....... beyond the fact they want to selectively push that idea when it comes to sexuality verses wealth.... is that saying that the wealth belongs to God rather than us, does not by any stretch that this wealth belongs to you, or society.

Just because the wealth I have, ultimately belongs to G-d, does not mean that you, or anyone else, or society, has any right to tell me what to do with the wealth G-d has given me.

And we know this because Jesus made that clear over and over, that he expected us to use wealth for his benefit. Not the benefit of the poor, although that can be a means of benefiting the Lord, nor the benefit of society, but rather for the Benefit of G-d in Heaven.

How do I know this? The story of the minas.

Luke 19:12–27

He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’​
“But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’​
“He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.​
“The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’​
“‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’​
“The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’​
“His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’​
“Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’​
“His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’​
“Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’​
“‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’​
“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”​

So in this story, we see many aspects of Capitalism, all wrapped up into a single story.

We see that the rich man is investing for profit. We see that return on investments are rewarded. And we see that if you refuse to go out and invest for the future, that you will lose what little we have.

By the way, we also see here that Jesus is openly supporting the idea of wealth disparity, says very directly that those that make wise choices even if rich will get richer. And those that make bad choices, even if poor, will get poorer.

Far from this being something terrible, Jesus is saying that it is morally right.

And that's true in the world today. The reason rich people are rich, is because they make wise choices. And the reason poor people are poor, is because they make bad choices. Those outcomes are morally justified.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
5,421
Reaction score
2,991
Points
893
I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.
You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.
Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?
No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.
But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.
On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.
That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.
I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.
But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.
Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?
Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.
"A", you state your case lucidly and well. Your arguments need to be heard, but hearing doesn't seem to go on very much in current American political dialog. It is almost all shouting and cliché exchange.
We share many similar thoughts and observations, though not all. "Left" and "right" in our culture don't function as meaningful terms anymore, thanks to distortion form all sides. The entire dictionary is nearly obsolete. My positions are mine and what labels people place on them are of no interest to me. "What works?" is what is important to me. This goes with the willingness to try something and the flexibility to change if the results are not what are desired. Overall, attaching to an "ism" looks to be much too limiting and often leads to dreadful excesses. "Eclecticism" is about the only one I could class as acceptable.
The early Christian communities were communistic by today's definitions, but that is not the "Communism" we saw in the 20th century and certainly no endorsement of it. In a basic manner, families are communal, in that those who can (the parents) work and those who need help (the children) receive help until they, too, can contribute. That's fine. Parenting should be a lifting up process ('raising' children). Society can take a lesson from that and help 'raise' the lesser enabled to a point at least closer to self sufficiency.

Calling that "Socialism" is a great way to sabotage what could be progress. At the same time, simple "aid" that only keeps the dependent dependent serves malevolent interests, not human ones.
There is too much fascination with formulaic, simplistic, one-size-fits-all, doctrinarian, polarized approaches. This duality is illusion and will not take us to the best destination, and may easily bring us to the end.

Good post..

Families are communal and depend on each other.. extended families live that social contract.. Conflating that with socialism seems like a stretch to me. Would you imagine that a small church congregation would help each other without being called communists??
There is nothing wrong with any of that, because it's not social control. Families helping each other, is not socialism. There is no social control, or controlling the means of production and distribution.

For example, the head of the family, still has one hundred percent ownership of his wealth and property. He choose to share that wealth with his family, or the community.

But he is not required to, or forced to.

If the father came home, and decided to not share his pay check, there is nothing anyone could do about it.

Socialism involves forcing people to give up control of their own wealth, property, and income. That's one of the key problems with claiming the Bible supports the concept of socialism, is that not one person was forced to share anything with anyone. And there were most certainly people who did not share with everyone, and we know that because Jesus himself was buried in the tomb of a rich man.

Under socialism the rich man would have his wealth confiscated from him, and distributed to those who had not earned it, and there would be no wealthy man's tomb for Jesus to be buried in.
In a Christian, faith based context, the fundamental concept is that everything comes from "God". Egoistic concerns about "owning" and what is "mine" are subsided. The limited and limiting concept of property is mitigated by the force of "God" being generous, so one must also be. Fundamentally, there is a realization that to possess is to be possessed.
We could say that "socialism" demands generosity while lacking the moral force, at least for anyone who is not immersed in the ideology.
In any case, the excesses of "me-my-mine" are responsible for wealth disparity that always brings disaster. Materialism is a killer.
Again, the claim that wealth disparity, and the problem "me-my-mine" always bring disaster, seems to be contradicted by at a minimum, about 200 years of history.

There is no example of any society that eliminated wealth disparity, and was wealthy. Nor is there any example of a system lacking "me-my-mine" that was successful.

As for it being excessive, that's not a quantifiable thing. That's just one person's opinion.

As for the Christian perspective on wealth, I agree completely that fundamentally all Christians understand that everything they have really all belong to G-d. We grasp that, from a religions and eternal perspective, we own nothing. Not even ourselves. In fact, the Bible says that we as individuals, are slaves to the Lord. And by slave, it means literally slave. We were bought with a price, the price of Jesus blood on the cross.

1 Corinthians 6
Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a man can commit is outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.

So while this specifically refers to sexual sins, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, we also understand that it applies to everything else as well, cars, homes, and all wealth.

The problem Christians have with the left-wing interpretation of that concept....... beyond the fact they want to selectively push that idea when it comes to sexuality verses wealth.... is that saying that the wealth belongs to God rather than us, does not by any stretch that this wealth belongs to you, or society.

Just because the wealth I have, ultimately belongs to G-d, does not mean that you, or anyone else, or society, has any right to tell me what to do with the wealth G-d has given me.

And we know this because Jesus made that clear over and over, that he expected us to use wealth for his benefit. Not the benefit of the poor, although that can be a means of benefiting the Lord, nor the benefit of society, but rather for the Benefit of G-d in Heaven.

How do I know this? The story of the minas.

Luke 19:12–27

He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’​
“But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’​
“He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.​
“The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’​
“‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’​
“The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’​
“His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’​
“Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’​
“His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’​
“Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’​
“‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’​
“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”​

So in this story, we see many aspects of Capitalism, all wrapped up into a single story.

We see that the rich man is investing for profit. We see that return on investments are rewarded. And we see that if you refuse to go out and invest for the future, that you will lose what little we have.

By the way, we also see here that Jesus is openly supporting the idea of wealth disparity, says very directly that those that make wise choices even if rich will get richer. And those that make bad choices, even if poor, will get poorer.

Far from this being something terrible, Jesus is saying that it is morally right.

And that's true in the world today. The reason rich people are rich, is because they make wise choices. And the reason poor people are poor, is because they make bad choices. Those outcomes are morally justified.
I agree with you and I am very familiar with the parable of the talents.. I just don't know why you think it has anything to do with "the left",, unless you are just projecting your personal issues.
 

vasuderatorrent

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
228
Points
85
Location
North Carolina
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
By surrounding himself with the rich women and living off of them. He got the tax out of a fish.
Verse?
Who bankrolled his ministry?
Luke 8


Women Who Supported Jesus
8 After this, Jesus traveled from one city and village to another. He spread the Good News about God’s kingdom. The twelve apostles were with him. 2 Also, some women were with him. They had been cured from evil spirits and various illnesses. These women were Mary, also called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out; 3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.
So Jesus preached that government must enact socialism?
He lived it. Jesus was
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
Leviticus 23:22 establishes an ancient food stamp program.

Matthew 12:1 Jesus and his disciples fill out the application to receive those ancient food stamps.

Almost every single book in the Prophets Israel is being harshly scolded for failing to care for the poor. Yeah. The Bible is liberal as a mother fucking Marxist European Communist. I always recommend ignoring the Bible for political advice if someone is advocating American values. American values are 100% in opposition to the Bible. It makes me angry as fuxk when conservatives pretend our values come from a middle eastern philosophical system. American values are deeply rooted in ancient European thought that celebrates freedom and strong leadership. The New Testament teaches us to conform and care for the weak. Biblical values are totally contrary to conservative values. Yes. Many things are mislabeled but World War 2 was a manifestation of these culture clashes.

European values are not Middle Eastern values.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
5,421
Reaction score
2,991
Points
893
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
By surrounding himself with the rich women and living off of them. He got the tax out of a fish.
Verse?
Who bankrolled his ministry?
Luke 8


Women Who Supported Jesus
8 After this, Jesus traveled from one city and village to another. He spread the Good News about God’s kingdom. The twelve apostles were with him. 2 Also, some women were with him. They had been cured from evil spirits and various illnesses. These women were Mary, also called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out; 3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.
So Jesus preached that government must enact socialism?
He lived it. Jesus was
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
Leviticus 23:22 establishes an ancient food stamp program.

Matthew 12:1 Jesus and his disciples fill out the application to receive those ancient food stamps.

Almost every single book in the Prophets Israel is being harshly scolded for failing to care for the poor. Yeah. The Bible is liberal as a mother fucking Marxist European Communist. I always recommend ignoring the Bible for political advice if someone is advocating American values. American values are 100% in opposition to the Bible. It makes me angry as fuxk when conservatives pretend our values come from a middle eastern philosophical system. American values are deeply rooted in ancient European thought that celebrates freedom and strong leadership. The New Testament teaches us to conform and care for the weak. Biblical values are totally contrary to conservative values. Yes. Many things are mislabeled but World War 2 was a manifestation of these culture clashes.

European values are not Middle Eastern values.
There wasn't a lot of freedom under the Divine Right of Kings. Most everyone was a serf or peasant.
 

vasuderatorrent

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
228
Points
85
Location
North Carolina
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
By surrounding himself with the rich women and living off of them. He got the tax out of a fish.
Verse?
Who bankrolled his ministry?
Luke 8


Women Who Supported Jesus
8 After this, Jesus traveled from one city and village to another. He spread the Good News about God’s kingdom. The twelve apostles were with him. 2 Also, some women were with him. They had been cured from evil spirits and various illnesses. These women were Mary, also called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out; 3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.
So Jesus preached that government must enact socialism?
He lived it. Jesus was
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
Leviticus 23:22 establishes an ancient food stamp program.

Matthew 12:1 Jesus and his disciples fill out the application to receive those ancient food stamps.

Almost every single book in the Prophets Israel is being harshly scolded for failing to care for the poor. Yeah. The Bible is liberal as a mother fucking Marxist European Communist. I always recommend ignoring the Bible for political advice if someone is advocating American values. American values are 100% in opposition to the Bible. It makes me angry as fuxk when conservatives pretend our values come from a middle eastern philosophical system. American values are deeply rooted in ancient European thought that celebrates freedom and strong leadership. The New Testament teaches us to conform and care for the weak. Biblical values are totally contrary to conservative values. Yes. Many things are mislabeled but World War 2 was a manifestation of these culture clashes.

European values are not Middle Eastern values.
There wasn't a lot of freedom under the Divine Right of Kings. Most everyone was a serf or peasant.
Where did the kings get their authority to be such tyrants? The Bible influenced England to a large degree.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
5,421
Reaction score
2,991
Points
893
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
By surrounding himself with the rich women and living off of them. He got the tax out of a fish.
Verse?
Who bankrolled his ministry?
Luke 8


Women Who Supported Jesus
8 After this, Jesus traveled from one city and village to another. He spread the Good News about God’s kingdom. The twelve apostles were with him. 2 Also, some women were with him. They had been cured from evil spirits and various illnesses. These women were Mary, also called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out; 3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.
So Jesus preached that government must enact socialism?
He lived it. Jesus was
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
Leviticus 23:22 establishes an ancient food stamp program.

Matthew 12:1 Jesus and his disciples fill out the application to receive those ancient food stamps.

Almost every single book in the Prophets Israel is being harshly scolded for failing to care for the poor. Yeah. The Bible is liberal as a mother fucking Marxist European Communist. I always recommend ignoring the Bible for political advice if someone is advocating American values. American values are 100% in opposition to the Bible. It makes me angry as fuxk when conservatives pretend our values come from a middle eastern philosophical system. American values are deeply rooted in ancient European thought that celebrates freedom and strong leadership. The New Testament teaches us to conform and care for the weak. Biblical values are totally contrary to conservative values. Yes. Many things are mislabeled but World War 2 was a manifestation of these culture clashes.

European values are not Middle Eastern values.
There wasn't a lot of freedom under the Divine Right of Kings. Most everyone was a serf or peasant.
Where did the kings get their authority to be such tyrants? The Bible influenced England to a large degree.
Divine right of Kings.

the doctrine that kings derive their authority from God, not from their subjects, from which it follows that rebellion is the worst of political crimes. It was claimed in Britain by the earlier Stuarts and is also associated with the absolutism of Louis XIV of France.


Divine right of kings - Wikipedia
https://www.bing.com/search?q=divine+right+of+kings&FORM=AWRE#
 

vasuderatorrent

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
228
Points
85
Location
North Carolina
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
By surrounding himself with the rich women and living off of them. He got the tax out of a fish.
Verse?
Who bankrolled his ministry?
Luke 8


Women Who Supported Jesus
8 After this, Jesus traveled from one city and village to another. He spread the Good News about God’s kingdom. The twelve apostles were with him. 2 Also, some women were with him. They had been cured from evil spirits and various illnesses. These women were Mary, also called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out; 3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.
So Jesus preached that government must enact socialism?
He lived it. Jesus was
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
Leviticus 23:22 establishes an ancient food stamp program.

Matthew 12:1 Jesus and his disciples fill out the application to receive those ancient food stamps.

Almost every single book in the Prophets Israel is being harshly scolded for failing to care for the poor. Yeah. The Bible is liberal as a mother fucking Marxist European Communist. I always recommend ignoring the Bible for political advice if someone is advocating American values. American values are 100% in opposition to the Bible. It makes me angry as fuxk when conservatives pretend our values come from a middle eastern philosophical system. American values are deeply rooted in ancient European thought that celebrates freedom and strong leadership. The New Testament teaches us to conform and care for the weak. Biblical values are totally contrary to conservative values. Yes. Many things are mislabeled but World War 2 was a manifestation of these culture clashes.

European values are not Middle Eastern values.
There wasn't a lot of freedom under the Divine Right of Kings. Most everyone was a serf or peasant.
There are no pure systems. Ancient Europeans celebrated strength and freedom. Humans love power and they will get it if they can. I'm just saying the Bible is steeped in North African/Middle Eastern thought. Those who organized the United States of America were of European descent. The values of Americans in 1776 was in opposition to socialism. The Bible is in unison with socialist ideology.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
5,421
Reaction score
2,991
Points
893
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
By surrounding himself with the rich women and living off of them. He got the tax out of a fish.
Verse?
Who bankrolled his ministry?
Luke 8


Women Who Supported Jesus
8 After this, Jesus traveled from one city and village to another. He spread the Good News about God’s kingdom. The twelve apostles were with him. 2 Also, some women were with him. They had been cured from evil spirits and various illnesses. These women were Mary, also called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out; 3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.
So Jesus preached that government must enact socialism?
He lived it. Jesus was
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
Leviticus 23:22 establishes an ancient food stamp program.

Matthew 12:1 Jesus and his disciples fill out the application to receive those ancient food stamps.

Almost every single book in the Prophets Israel is being harshly scolded for failing to care for the poor. Yeah. The Bible is liberal as a mother fucking Marxist European Communist. I always recommend ignoring the Bible for political advice if someone is advocating American values. American values are 100% in opposition to the Bible. It makes me angry as fuxk when conservatives pretend our values come from a middle eastern philosophical system. American values are deeply rooted in ancient European thought that celebrates freedom and strong leadership. The New Testament teaches us to conform and care for the weak. Biblical values are totally contrary to conservative values. Yes. Many things are mislabeled but World War 2 was a manifestation of these culture clashes.

European values are not Middle Eastern values.
There wasn't a lot of freedom under the Divine Right of Kings. Most everyone was a serf or peasant.
There are no pure systems. Ancient Europeans celebrated strength and freedom. Humans love power and they will get it if they can. I'm just saying the Bible is steeped in North African/Middle Eastern thought. Thise who organized the United States of America were of European descent. The values of Anericans in 1776 was in opposition to socialism. The Bible is in unison with socialist ideology.
You mean back when they were painting themselves blue? Muslim Spain had street lights and aqueducts .. and was translating from the Greek and Latin into Hebrew and Arabic. There were pockets of socialism in America in the early 1600s.. depending on the religious group.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.
You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.
Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?
No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.
But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.
On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.
That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.
I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.
But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.
Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?
Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.
"A", you state your case lucidly and well. Your arguments need to be heard, but hearing doesn't seem to go on very much in current American political dialog. It is almost all shouting and cliché exchange.
We share many similar thoughts and observations, though not all. "Left" and "right" in our culture don't function as meaningful terms anymore, thanks to distortion form all sides. The entire dictionary is nearly obsolete. My positions are mine and what labels people place on them are of no interest to me. "What works?" is what is important to me. This goes with the willingness to try something and the flexibility to change if the results are not what are desired. Overall, attaching to an "ism" looks to be much too limiting and often leads to dreadful excesses. "Eclecticism" is about the only one I could class as acceptable.
The early Christian communities were communistic by today's definitions, but that is not the "Communism" we saw in the 20th century and certainly no endorsement of it. In a basic manner, families are communal, in that those who can (the parents) work and those who need help (the children) receive help until they, too, can contribute. That's fine. Parenting should be a lifting up process ('raising' children). Society can take a lesson from that and help 'raise' the lesser enabled to a point at least closer to self sufficiency.

Calling that "Socialism" is a great way to sabotage what could be progress. At the same time, simple "aid" that only keeps the dependent dependent serves malevolent interests, not human ones.
There is too much fascination with formulaic, simplistic, one-size-fits-all, doctrinarian, polarized approaches. This duality is illusion and will not take us to the best destination, and may easily bring us to the end.

Good post..

Families are communal and depend on each other.. extended families live that social contract.. Conflating that with socialism seems like a stretch to me. Would you imagine that a small church congregation would help each other without being called communists??
There is nothing wrong with any of that, because it's not social control. Families helping each other, is not socialism. There is no social control, or controlling the means of production and distribution.

For example, the head of the family, still has one hundred percent ownership of his wealth and property. He choose to share that wealth with his family, or the community.

But he is not required to, or forced to.

If the father came home, and decided to not share his pay check, there is nothing anyone could do about it.

Socialism involves forcing people to give up control of their own wealth, property, and income. That's one of the key problems with claiming the Bible supports the concept of socialism, is that not one person was forced to share anything with anyone. And there were most certainly people who did not share with everyone, and we know that because Jesus himself was buried in the tomb of a rich man.

Under socialism the rich man would have his wealth confiscated from him, and distributed to those who had not earned it, and there would be no wealthy man's tomb for Jesus to be buried in.
In a Christian, faith based context, the fundamental concept is that everything comes from "God". Egoistic concerns about "owning" and what is "mine" are subsided. The limited and limiting concept of property is mitigated by the force of "God" being generous, so one must also be. Fundamentally, there is a realization that to possess is to be possessed.
We could say that "socialism" demands generosity while lacking the moral force, at least for anyone who is not immersed in the ideology.
In any case, the excesses of "me-my-mine" are responsible for wealth disparity that always brings disaster. Materialism is a killer.
Again, the claim that wealth disparity, and the problem "me-my-mine" always bring disaster, seems to be contradicted by at a minimum, about 200 years of history.

There is no example of any society that eliminated wealth disparity, and was wealthy. Nor is there any example of a system lacking "me-my-mine" that was successful.

As for it being excessive, that's not a quantifiable thing. That's just one person's opinion.

As for the Christian perspective on wealth, I agree completely that fundamentally all Christians understand that everything they have really all belong to G-d. We grasp that, from a religions and eternal perspective, we own nothing. Not even ourselves. In fact, the Bible says that we as individuals, are slaves to the Lord. And by slave, it means literally slave. We were bought with a price, the price of Jesus blood on the cross.

1 Corinthians 6
Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a man can commit is outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.

So while this specifically refers to sexual sins, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, we also understand that it applies to everything else as well, cars, homes, and all wealth.

The problem Christians have with the left-wing interpretation of that concept....... beyond the fact they want to selectively push that idea when it comes to sexuality verses wealth.... is that saying that the wealth belongs to God rather than us, does not by any stretch that this wealth belongs to you, or society.

Just because the wealth I have, ultimately belongs to G-d, does not mean that you, or anyone else, or society, has any right to tell me what to do with the wealth G-d has given me.

And we know this because Jesus made that clear over and over, that he expected us to use wealth for his benefit. Not the benefit of the poor, although that can be a means of benefiting the Lord, nor the benefit of society, but rather for the Benefit of G-d in Heaven.

How do I know this? The story of the minas.

Luke 19:12–27

He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’​
“But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’​
“He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.​
“The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’​
“‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’​
“The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’​
“His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’​
“Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’​
“His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’​
“Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’​
“‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’​
“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”​

So in this story, we see many aspects of Capitalism, all wrapped up into a single story.

We see that the rich man is investing for profit. We see that return on investments are rewarded. And we see that if you refuse to go out and invest for the future, that you will lose what little we have.

By the way, we also see here that Jesus is openly supporting the idea of wealth disparity, says very directly that those that make wise choices even if rich will get richer. And those that make bad choices, even if poor, will get poorer.

Far from this being something terrible, Jesus is saying that it is morally right.

And that's true in the world today. The reason rich people are rich, is because they make wise choices. And the reason poor people are poor, is because they make bad choices. Those outcomes are morally justified.
I agree with you and I am very familiar with the parable of the talents.. I just don't know why you think it has anything to do with "the left",, unless you are just projecting your personal issues.
The left-wing, socialists, and Democrats, have been saying the Bible supports socialism for, to my memory at least the mid-2000s, and likely before and I don't remember. It's been a reoccurring meme for a minimum of 15 years.

That's why I say it has something to do with the left, because they are the ones pushing that narrative.

If you are not pushing that, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
By surrounding himself with the rich women and living off of them. He got the tax out of a fish.
Verse?
Who bankrolled his ministry?
Luke 8


Women Who Supported Jesus
8 After this, Jesus traveled from one city and village to another. He spread the Good News about God’s kingdom. The twelve apostles were with him. 2 Also, some women were with him. They had been cured from evil spirits and various illnesses. These women were Mary, also called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out; 3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.
So Jesus preached that government must enact socialism?
He lived it. Jesus was
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
Leviticus 23:22 establishes an ancient food stamp program.

Matthew 12:1 Jesus and his disciples fill out the application to receive those ancient food stamps.

Almost every single book in the Prophets Israel is being harshly scolded for failing to care for the poor. Yeah. The Bible is liberal as a mother fucking Marxist European Communist. I always recommend ignoring the Bible for political advice if someone is advocating American values. American values are 100% in opposition to the Bible. It makes me angry as fuxk when conservatives pretend our values come from a middle eastern philosophical system. American values are deeply rooted in ancient European thought that celebrates freedom and strong leadership. The New Testament teaches us to conform and care for the weak. Biblical values are totally contrary to conservative values. Yes. Many things are mislabeled but World War 2 was a manifestation of these culture clashes.

European values are not Middle Eastern values.
There wasn't a lot of freedom under the Divine Right of Kings. Most everyone was a serf or peasant.
There are no pure systems. Ancient Europeans celebrated strength and freedom. Humans love power and they will get it if they can. I'm just saying the Bible is steeped in North African/Middle Eastern thought. Thise who organized the United States of America were of European descent. The values of Anericans in 1776 was in opposition to socialism. The Bible is in unison with socialist ideology.
You mean back when they were painting themselves blue? Muslim Spain had street lights and aqueducts .. and was translating from the Greek and Latin into Hebrew and Arabic. There were pockets of socialism in America in the early 1600s.. depending on the religious group.
Yes, there were pockets of socialist based ideology, and they failed. That's why we are capitalist based.
 
Last edited:

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
5,421
Reaction score
2,991
Points
893
I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.
You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.
Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?
No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.
But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.
On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.
That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.
I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.
But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.
Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?
Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.
"A", you state your case lucidly and well. Your arguments need to be heard, but hearing doesn't seem to go on very much in current American political dialog. It is almost all shouting and cliché exchange.
We share many similar thoughts and observations, though not all. "Left" and "right" in our culture don't function as meaningful terms anymore, thanks to distortion form all sides. The entire dictionary is nearly obsolete. My positions are mine and what labels people place on them are of no interest to me. "What works?" is what is important to me. This goes with the willingness to try something and the flexibility to change if the results are not what are desired. Overall, attaching to an "ism" looks to be much too limiting and often leads to dreadful excesses. "Eclecticism" is about the only one I could class as acceptable.
The early Christian communities were communistic by today's definitions, but that is not the "Communism" we saw in the 20th century and certainly no endorsement of it. In a basic manner, families are communal, in that those who can (the parents) work and those who need help (the children) receive help until they, too, can contribute. That's fine. Parenting should be a lifting up process ('raising' children). Society can take a lesson from that and help 'raise' the lesser enabled to a point at least closer to self sufficiency.

Calling that "Socialism" is a great way to sabotage what could be progress. At the same time, simple "aid" that only keeps the dependent dependent serves malevolent interests, not human ones.
There is too much fascination with formulaic, simplistic, one-size-fits-all, doctrinarian, polarized approaches. This duality is illusion and will not take us to the best destination, and may easily bring us to the end.

Good post..

Families are communal and depend on each other.. extended families live that social contract.. Conflating that with socialism seems like a stretch to me. Would you imagine that a small church congregation would help each other without being called communists??
There is nothing wrong with any of that, because it's not social control. Families helping each other, is not socialism. There is no social control, or controlling the means of production and distribution.

For example, the head of the family, still has one hundred percent ownership of his wealth and property. He choose to share that wealth with his family, or the community.

But he is not required to, or forced to.

If the father came home, and decided to not share his pay check, there is nothing anyone could do about it.

Socialism involves forcing people to give up control of their own wealth, property, and income. That's one of the key problems with claiming the Bible supports the concept of socialism, is that not one person was forced to share anything with anyone. And there were most certainly people who did not share with everyone, and we know that because Jesus himself was buried in the tomb of a rich man.

Under socialism the rich man would have his wealth confiscated from him, and distributed to those who had not earned it, and there would be no wealthy man's tomb for Jesus to be buried in.
In a Christian, faith based context, the fundamental concept is that everything comes from "God". Egoistic concerns about "owning" and what is "mine" are subsided. The limited and limiting concept of property is mitigated by the force of "God" being generous, so one must also be. Fundamentally, there is a realization that to possess is to be possessed.
We could say that "socialism" demands generosity while lacking the moral force, at least for anyone who is not immersed in the ideology.
In any case, the excesses of "me-my-mine" are responsible for wealth disparity that always brings disaster. Materialism is a killer.
Again, the claim that wealth disparity, and the problem "me-my-mine" always bring disaster, seems to be contradicted by at a minimum, about 200 years of history.

There is no example of any society that eliminated wealth disparity, and was wealthy. Nor is there any example of a system lacking "me-my-mine" that was successful.

As for it being excessive, that's not a quantifiable thing. That's just one person's opinion.

As for the Christian perspective on wealth, I agree completely that fundamentally all Christians understand that everything they have really all belong to G-d. We grasp that, from a religions and eternal perspective, we own nothing. Not even ourselves. In fact, the Bible says that we as individuals, are slaves to the Lord. And by slave, it means literally slave. We were bought with a price, the price of Jesus blood on the cross.

1 Corinthians 6
Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a man can commit is outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.

So while this specifically refers to sexual sins, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, we also understand that it applies to everything else as well, cars, homes, and all wealth.

The problem Christians have with the left-wing interpretation of that concept....... beyond the fact they want to selectively push that idea when it comes to sexuality verses wealth.... is that saying that the wealth belongs to God rather than us, does not by any stretch that this wealth belongs to you, or society.

Just because the wealth I have, ultimately belongs to G-d, does not mean that you, or anyone else, or society, has any right to tell me what to do with the wealth G-d has given me.

And we know this because Jesus made that clear over and over, that he expected us to use wealth for his benefit. Not the benefit of the poor, although that can be a means of benefiting the Lord, nor the benefit of society, but rather for the Benefit of G-d in Heaven.

How do I know this? The story of the minas.

Luke 19:12–27

He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’​
“But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’​
“He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.​
“The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’​
“‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’​
“The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’​
“His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’​
“Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’​
“His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’​
“Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’​
“‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’​
“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”​

So in this story, we see many aspects of Capitalism, all wrapped up into a single story.

We see that the rich man is investing for profit. We see that return on investments are rewarded. And we see that if you refuse to go out and invest for the future, that you will lose what little we have.

By the way, we also see here that Jesus is openly supporting the idea of wealth disparity, says very directly that those that make wise choices even if rich will get richer. And those that make bad choices, even if poor, will get poorer.

Far from this being something terrible, Jesus is saying that it is morally right.

And that's true in the world today. The reason rich people are rich, is because they make wise choices. And the reason poor people are poor, is because they make bad choices. Those outcomes are morally justified.
I agree with you and I am very familiar with the parable of the talents.. I just don't know why you think it has anything to do with "the left",, unless you are just projecting your personal issues.
The left-wing, socialists, and Democrats, have been saying the Bible supports socialism for, to my memory at least the mid-2000s, and likely before and I don't remember. It's been a reoccurring meme for a minimum of 15 years.

That's why I say it has something to do with the left, because they are the ones pushing that narrative.

If you are not pushing that, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Perhaps some liberals are pushing that narrative.. I am unfamiliar with them.. I think liberals are keen on equality and human rights.. or try to be..

I'd like to see Evan McMullen run for the GOP in 2024.. He's well qualified, smart and decent.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
By surrounding himself with the rich women and living off of them. He got the tax out of a fish.
Verse?
Who bankrolled his ministry?
Luke 8


Women Who Supported Jesus
8 After this, Jesus traveled from one city and village to another. He spread the Good News about God’s kingdom. The twelve apostles were with him. 2 Also, some women were with him. They had been cured from evil spirits and various illnesses. These women were Mary, also called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out; 3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.
So Jesus preached that government must enact socialism?
He lived it. Jesus was
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
Leviticus 23:22 establishes an ancient food stamp program.

Matthew 12:1 Jesus and his disciples fill out the application to receive those ancient food stamps.

Almost every single book in the Prophets Israel is being harshly scolded for failing to care for the poor. Yeah. The Bible is liberal as a mother fucking Marxist European Communist. I always recommend ignoring the Bible for political advice if someone is advocating American values. American values are 100% in opposition to the Bible. It makes me angry as fuxk when conservatives pretend our values come from a middle eastern philosophical system. American values are deeply rooted in ancient European thought that celebrates freedom and strong leadership. The New Testament teaches us to conform and care for the weak. Biblical values are totally contrary to conservative values. Yes. Many things are mislabeled but World War 2 was a manifestation of these culture clashes.

European values are not Middle Eastern values.
No, you are being ridiculous.

You are confusing conforming to G-d, and conforming to the state. You are confusing obeying socialist programs, with personal charity. They are not the same.

Leviticus was not a food stamp program. It did not institute a system of government confiscation of food, to give out to others.

Leviticus told individual people to be charitable. Not election someone else to be charitable for you. Not to demand other people who have more than you, give to the poor. It was directed at YOU the individual.

You the property owner, who can do what you want with your own property, like a true Capitalist. You can do with your property as you see fit. G-d says, be charitable with what you have.

That is nothing at all like socialism. Nothing.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
By surrounding himself with the rich women and living off of them. He got the tax out of a fish.
Verse?
Who bankrolled his ministry?
Luke 8


Women Who Supported Jesus
8 After this, Jesus traveled from one city and village to another. He spread the Good News about God’s kingdom. The twelve apostles were with him. 2 Also, some women were with him. They had been cured from evil spirits and various illnesses. These women were Mary, also called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out; 3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.
So Jesus preached that government must enact socialism?
He lived it. Jesus was
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
Leviticus 23:22 establishes an ancient food stamp program.

Matthew 12:1 Jesus and his disciples fill out the application to receive those ancient food stamps.

Almost every single book in the Prophets Israel is being harshly scolded for failing to care for the poor. Yeah. The Bible is liberal as a mother fucking Marxist European Communist. I always recommend ignoring the Bible for political advice if someone is advocating American values. American values are 100% in opposition to the Bible. It makes me angry as fuxk when conservatives pretend our values come from a middle eastern philosophical system. American values are deeply rooted in ancient European thought that celebrates freedom and strong leadership. The New Testament teaches us to conform and care for the weak. Biblical values are totally contrary to conservative values. Yes. Many things are mislabeled but World War 2 was a manifestation of these culture clashes.

European values are not Middle Eastern values.
There wasn't a lot of freedom under the Divine Right of Kings. Most everyone was a serf or peasant.
Where did the kings get their authority to be such tyrants? The Bible influenced England to a large degree.
No, that's ridiculous. That implies that there were no kings before the Bible existed, and that is obviously false.

The reason people were serfs, is because of safety and security issues.

In a lawless land of thieves, and bands of raiders and muggers, there was no safety. Peasants found themselves at the mercy of any band of marauders who raped, stole, and killed whomever and whenever they pleased.

The result was that naturally people banded together under the leadership of anyone who could muster a military force to keep the peace and provide safety. Serfs willingly accepted their position to work the land, for the benefit of the nobility, because they were given safety and peace in exchange.

As the power of kings and nobles grew, the criminals, marauders and bandits, were slowly eradicated from the land. This led to the eventual decline of the Feudal system.

It's been awhile since my college history classes, but if I remember everything right, what I just laid out is pretty accurate.
 

surada

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
5,421
Reaction score
2,991
Points
893
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
By surrounding himself with the rich women and living off of them. He got the tax out of a fish.
Verse?
Who bankrolled his ministry?
Luke 8


Women Who Supported Jesus
8 After this, Jesus traveled from one city and village to another. He spread the Good News about God’s kingdom. The twelve apostles were with him. 2 Also, some women were with him. They had been cured from evil spirits and various illnesses. These women were Mary, also called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out; 3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.
So Jesus preached that government must enact socialism?
He lived it. Jesus was
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
Leviticus 23:22 establishes an ancient food stamp program.

Matthew 12:1 Jesus and his disciples fill out the application to receive those ancient food stamps.

Almost every single book in the Prophets Israel is being harshly scolded for failing to care for the poor. Yeah. The Bible is liberal as a mother fucking Marxist European Communist. I always recommend ignoring the Bible for political advice if someone is advocating American values. American values are 100% in opposition to the Bible. It makes me angry as fuxk when conservatives pretend our values come from a middle eastern philosophical system. American values are deeply rooted in ancient European thought that celebrates freedom and strong leadership. The New Testament teaches us to conform and care for the weak. Biblical values are totally contrary to conservative values. Yes. Many things are mislabeled but World War 2 was a manifestation of these culture clashes.

European values are not Middle Eastern values.
There wasn't a lot of freedom under the Divine Right of Kings. Most everyone was a serf or peasant.
Where did the kings get their authority to be such tyrants? The Bible influenced England to a large degree.
No, that's ridiculous. That implies that there were no kings before the Bible existed, and that is obviously false.

The reason people were serfs, is because of safety and security issues.

In a lawless land of thieves, and bands of raiders and muggers, there was no safety. Peasants found themselves at the mercy of any band of marauders who raped, stole, and killed whomever and whenever they pleased.

The result was that naturally people banded together under the leadership of anyone who could muster a military force to keep the peace and provide safety. Serfs willingly accepted their position to work the land, for the benefit of the nobility, because they were given safety and peace in exchange.

As the power of kings and nobles grew, the criminals, marauders and bandits, were slowly eradicated from the land. This led to the eventual decline of the Feudal system.

It's been awhile since my college history classes, but if I remember everything right, what I just laid out is pretty accurate.
Sure.. Noah was a king in Sumer in Shuruppak .
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,526
Reaction score
610
Points
85
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
That's not what Socialism is. Stop watching Fox.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success at least socialism has the correct objective irregardless how it is accomplished where full employment is antithetical to capitalism - the harbinger for christianity.
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.

Which again is why every single socialist system eventually results in force and violence. This is why Stalin had his gulags, Mao had his communes, North Korea has their forced labor, and so on.

Yes, any economic system can achieve full employment using violence and ruthless force.

To that end, yes full employment is antithetical to capitalism where people are free to make their own choices, and thus, they can choose to live on the streets, or choose to live on welfare if you are dumb enough to give that to them, or live on their own saved income as I am doing right now.

Full employment is a garbage goal. Freedom should be the goal, and Capitalism and Christianity both are completely in line with people being free to choose their own life.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.
.
an extract, derived from the classical criteria for full employment -
.
Thus the problem of full employment is one of maintaining adequate effective demand. “When effective demand is deficient,” writes Keynes, “there is underemployment of labour in the sense that there are men unemployed who would be willing to work at less than existing real wage.
.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment - the snippet above is an example of the many deviousness's of capitalism in regards for those that do seek employment.

yours is a mindless argument used for centuries as a means of suppression for the personal gain of a few in the many facets of economic models and like yours have been endorsed by christianity throughout the centuries -

as devious as the quote in the christian bible.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end.
.
yours is a mindless argument used for centuries ...
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end
.
the run-away christian ...
.
View attachment 445377
.
nothing new there. the economist is keynes.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
:lame2:

classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...
.
IIThessalonians 3:10, KJV: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
.
the forgery above is not an unwillingness but a victimization christianity has harbored over the centuries by their political document disguised as a religion for the specific purpose to ensnarel humanity as the true motivation of a misguide few - andydelusion - at the expense of their unfortunate victims.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
That's not what Socialism is. Stop watching Fox.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success at least socialism has the correct objective irregardless how it is accomplished where full employment is antithetical to capitalism - the harbinger for christianity.
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.

Which again is why every single socialist system eventually results in force and violence. This is why Stalin had his gulags, Mao had his communes, North Korea has their forced labor, and so on.

Yes, any economic system can achieve full employment using violence and ruthless force.

To that end, yes full employment is antithetical to capitalism where people are free to make their own choices, and thus, they can choose to live on the streets, or choose to live on welfare if you are dumb enough to give that to them, or live on their own saved income as I am doing right now.

Full employment is a garbage goal. Freedom should be the goal, and Capitalism and Christianity both are completely in line with people being free to choose their own life.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.
.
an extract, derived from the classical criteria for full employment -
.
Thus the problem of full employment is one of maintaining adequate effective demand. “When effective demand is deficient,” writes Keynes, “there is underemployment of labour in the sense that there are men unemployed who would be willing to work at less than existing real wage.
.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment - the snippet above is an example of the many deviousness's of capitalism in regards for those that do seek employment.

yours is a mindless argument used for centuries as a means of suppression for the personal gain of a few in the many facets of economic models and like yours have been endorsed by christianity throughout the centuries -

as devious as the quote in the christian bible.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end.
.
yours is a mindless argument used for centuries ...
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end
.
the run-away christian ...
.
View attachment 445377
.
nothing new there. the economist is keynes.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
:lame2:

classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...
.
IIThessalonians 3:10, KJV: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
.
the forgery above is not an unwillingness but a victimization christianity has harbored over the centuries by their political document disguised as a religion for the specific purpose to ensnarel humanity as the true motivation of a misguide few - andydelusion - at the expense of their unfortunate victims.

classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...


Whether the classical economic modeling is centered to full employment, or not.... doesn't matter, because that is a false method of valuing the system.

In a freedom based system, people can choose whether or not to work, and reap the rewards of their choices, whether in more wealth, or more poverty.

You want to reach full employment in a matter of weeks? Make it illegal to not work, and toss everyone who doesn't into prison or the military.

Take away their right to choose, and then you can have full employment.

And by the way, this isn't a theory, this is practically speaking what happened in the 1930s and 1940s with the draft. Contrary to popular left-wing ideology, the military spending isn't want ended the Depression. Unemployment didn't go down because the economy improved, or that wealth increased. If anything, people lived more meager lives during the war years, because everything was rationed and controlled.

What 'ended the depression' was the fact they rounded tons of people, and shipped them across the world. Many people who were not working, where shuttled into the military and shipped out. And those that were left, found work because many of the people who were working, also were shipped out, and needed replaced with those who were not.

In short, the government drafted, and forced people into labor. Naturally unemployment fell.

So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,526
Reaction score
610
Points
85
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
That's not what Socialism is. Stop watching Fox.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success at least socialism has the correct objective irregardless how it is accomplished where full employment is antithetical to capitalism - the harbinger for christianity.
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.

Which again is why every single socialist system eventually results in force and violence. This is why Stalin had his gulags, Mao had his communes, North Korea has their forced labor, and so on.

Yes, any economic system can achieve full employment using violence and ruthless force.

To that end, yes full employment is antithetical to capitalism where people are free to make their own choices, and thus, they can choose to live on the streets, or choose to live on welfare if you are dumb enough to give that to them, or live on their own saved income as I am doing right now.

Full employment is a garbage goal. Freedom should be the goal, and Capitalism and Christianity both are completely in line with people being free to choose their own life.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.
.
an extract, derived from the classical criteria for full employment -
.
Thus the problem of full employment is one of maintaining adequate effective demand. “When effective demand is deficient,” writes Keynes, “there is underemployment of labour in the sense that there are men unemployed who would be willing to work at less than existing real wage.
.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment - the snippet above is an example of the many deviousness's of capitalism in regards for those that do seek employment.

yours is a mindless argument used for centuries as a means of suppression for the personal gain of a few in the many facets of economic models and like yours have been endorsed by christianity throughout the centuries -

as devious as the quote in the christian bible.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end.
.
yours is a mindless argument used for centuries ...
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end
.
the run-away christian ...
.
View attachment 445377
.
nothing new there. the economist is keynes.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
:lame2:

classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...
.
IIThessalonians 3:10, KJV: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
.
the forgery above is not an unwillingness but a victimization christianity has harbored over the centuries by their political document disguised as a religion for the specific purpose to ensnarel humanity as the true motivation of a misguide few - andydelusion - at the expense of their unfortunate victims.
classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...

Whether the classical economic modeling is centered to full employment, or not.... doesn't matter, because that is a false method of valuing the system.

In a freedom based system, people can choose whether or not to work, and reap the rewards of their choices, whether in more wealth, or more poverty.

You want to reach full employment in a matter of weeks? Make it illegal to not work, and toss everyone who doesn't into prison or the military.

Take away their right to choose, and then you can have full employment.

And by the way, this isn't a theory, this is practically speaking what happened in the 1930s and 1940s with the draft. Contrary to popular left-wing ideology, the military spending isn't want ended the Depression. Unemployment didn't go down because the economy improved, or that wealth increased. If anything, people lived more meager lives during the war years, because everything was rationed and controlled.

What 'ended the depression' was the fact they rounded tons of people, and shipped them across the world. Many people who were not working, where shuttled into the military and shipped out. And those that were left, found work because many of the people who were working, also were shipped out, and needed replaced with those who were not.

In short, the government drafted, and forced people into labor. Naturally unemployment fell.

So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
.
So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
.
you have gone over the edge ... just to let you know. maybe it will help.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
20,967
Reaction score
6,205
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
That's not what Socialism is. Stop watching Fox.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success at least socialism has the correct objective irregardless how it is accomplished where full employment is antithetical to capitalism - the harbinger for christianity.
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.

Which again is why every single socialist system eventually results in force and violence. This is why Stalin had his gulags, Mao had his communes, North Korea has their forced labor, and so on.

Yes, any economic system can achieve full employment using violence and ruthless force.

To that end, yes full employment is antithetical to capitalism where people are free to make their own choices, and thus, they can choose to live on the streets, or choose to live on welfare if you are dumb enough to give that to them, or live on their own saved income as I am doing right now.

Full employment is a garbage goal. Freedom should be the goal, and Capitalism and Christianity both are completely in line with people being free to choose their own life.
.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success
Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.
.
an extract, derived from the classical criteria for full employment -
.
Thus the problem of full employment is one of maintaining adequate effective demand. “When effective demand is deficient,” writes Keynes, “there is underemployment of labour in the sense that there are men unemployed who would be willing to work at less than existing real wage.
.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment - the snippet above is an example of the many deviousness's of capitalism in regards for those that do seek employment.

yours is a mindless argument used for centuries as a means of suppression for the personal gain of a few in the many facets of economic models and like yours have been endorsed by christianity throughout the centuries -

as devious as the quote in the christian bible.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end.
.
yours is a mindless argument used for centuries ...
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end
.
the run-away christian ...
.
View attachment 445377
.
nothing new there. the economist is keynes.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.
.
:lame2:

classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...
.
IIThessalonians 3:10, KJV: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
.
the forgery above is not an unwillingness but a victimization christianity has harbored over the centuries by their political document disguised as a religion for the specific purpose to ensnarel humanity as the true motivation of a misguide few - andydelusion - at the expense of their unfortunate victims.
classical economic modeling is centered to - full employment - how models are structured and whether full employment is accomplished ...

Whether the classical economic modeling is centered to full employment, or not.... doesn't matter, because that is a false method of valuing the system.

In a freedom based system, people can choose whether or not to work, and reap the rewards of their choices, whether in more wealth, or more poverty.

You want to reach full employment in a matter of weeks? Make it illegal to not work, and toss everyone who doesn't into prison or the military.

Take away their right to choose, and then you can have full employment.

And by the way, this isn't a theory, this is practically speaking what happened in the 1930s and 1940s with the draft. Contrary to popular left-wing ideology, the military spending isn't want ended the Depression. Unemployment didn't go down because the economy improved, or that wealth increased. If anything, people lived more meager lives during the war years, because everything was rationed and controlled.

What 'ended the depression' was the fact they rounded tons of people, and shipped them across the world. Many people who were not working, where shuttled into the military and shipped out. And those that were left, found work because many of the people who were working, also were shipped out, and needed replaced with those who were not.

In short, the government drafted, and forced people into labor. Naturally unemployment fell.

So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
.
So unless you believe in forced labor, full employment should not be the measure of economics. Freedom should.
.
you have gone over the edge ... just to let you know. maybe it will help.
Thanks, but I know I'm right, and we have 100 years of that logic to prove I'm right.

That's why you have still have yet to counter a single point I made, while coming up with rationalizations to ignore it.

So I'm good. Thanks for your concern. Have a good one.
 

vasuderatorrent

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
228
Points
85
Location
North Carolina
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
By surrounding himself with the rich women and living off of them. He got the tax out of a fish.
Verse?
Who bankrolled his ministry?
Luke 8


Women Who Supported Jesus
8 After this, Jesus traveled from one city and village to another. He spread the Good News about God’s kingdom. The twelve apostles were with him. 2 Also, some women were with him. They had been cured from evil spirits and various illnesses. These women were Mary, also called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out; 3 Joanna, whose husband Chusa was Herod’s administrator; Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.
So Jesus preached that government must enact socialism?
He lived it. Jesus was
Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?
Leviticus 23:22 establishes an ancient food stamp program.

Matthew 12:1 Jesus and his disciples fill out the application to receive those ancient food stamps.

Almost every single book in the Prophets Israel is being harshly scolded for failing to care for the poor. Yeah. The Bible is liberal as a mother fucking Marxist European Communist. I always recommend ignoring the Bible for political advice if someone is advocating American values. American values are 100% in opposition to the Bible. It makes me angry as fuxk when conservatives pretend our values come from a middle eastern philosophical system. American values are deeply rooted in ancient European thought that celebrates freedom and strong leadership. The New Testament teaches us to conform and care for the weak. Biblical values are totally contrary to conservative values. Yes. Many things are mislabeled but World War 2 was a manifestation of these culture clashes.

European values are not Middle Eastern values.
No, you are being ridiculous.

You are confusing conforming to G-d, and conforming to the state. You are confusing obeying socialist programs, with personal charity. They are not the same.

Leviticus was not a food stamp program. It did not institute a system of government confiscation of food, to give out to others.

Leviticus told individual people to be charitable. Not election someone else to be charitable for you. Not to demand other people who have more than you, give to the poor. It was directed at YOU the individual.

You the property owner, who can do what you want with your own property, like a true Capitalist. You can do with your property as you see fit. G-d says, be charitable with what you have.

That is nothing at all like socialism. Nothing.
I am a full blown freedom loving capitalist. I'm on your side. I just do not derive my economic and political theory from Middle Eastern/African documents. Israel was a theocracy. Refusing to follow the laws of God was not an option. The punishment for dishonoring God was death by a violent means of execution if I recall.

The Bible is socialist as a mother fucker. The Bible is actually more socialist than Marxism. I am not socialist nor am I stupid enough to pretend a middle Eastern document promotes European values that predate England's exposure to Christianity. Christianity influenced European culture but it never erased Europe's core identity as Germanic peoples. Even World War 2 did not completely erase the ancient European spirit.

Even today you agree that socialism sucks.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top