Featured Socialism is not Christian

5rerasons why we should not be supporting any Dem for president!

 

Socialism doesn’t have a leg to stand on, but socialists would gladly take yours to make up for it.

"What about their legs? They don't need those. Ooh, they look tasty...!"​

 

The writer of the article has invented a view of Socialism in her attempted refutation.

I agree with this comment -

Vanessa Oduah about 1 month ago

"I had to sign up just to let Mrs. Roys know how RIDICULOUS this article is. And I say that as a devout Christian. I truly hope she reads my commentary.
Probably the one thing she got right was private ownership. The Bible does support that. But let's also point out that the Israelites were commanded to leave a portion of their produce for the poor and destitute to come and pick (Lev 23:22). Honestly, this verse ALONE can debunk her entire article.

She says that socialism is based on a materialistic world view... But capitalism isn't? We're talking about economic systems- of COURSE there's a materialistic view.

Point 2 is just completely asinine. "People with good character tend to accumulate more and people of bad character may lose everything they have." So let's assess the character of some (not all) current millionaires and billionaires. What about the non-Christian millionaires, Mrs. Roys? Do they have good character? You referenced instructions in 1 Timothy about aid for widows. You don't mention that the passage starts by saying "Support widows who are genuinely IN NEED" (1 Tim 5:3). The command is based first and foremost on need, which completely refutes your assertion that aid is primarily based on character. "Good works" is the last qualification mentioned; and none of the good works he lists required one to be working a high-paying job.

You talked about the government stealing. It's not stealing if you're notified beforehand. What IS stealing, though, is placing the tax burden on middle-class and piir citizens while creating loopholes for the wealthy like allowing them to exclude capital gains from their income so that they're not taxed on it. That is stealing.

Marriage- While I stand with the Word of God concerning homosexuality, I know that it is not related to this discussion of economics. Your inclusion of it here seems like a last-ditch effort to convince your comrades that socialism is terrible. While you work so hard to prevent gay marriage, you overlook a myriad of other sins. In short, this is terrible.

Both capitalism and socialism can be good or bad depending on who is enforcing them. American capitalism has been in the hands of Satan since Reagan."​

 

Nor are Nazis

 

Your pairing Reagan to Satan!?! Really!!!!

 

I'm puzzled & concerned that US Christians are so opposed to Socialism. Various political views are held by practising Christians, often depending on their upbringing & circumstances.

If we look for a Biblical position, the people were shepherds & arable farmers in their allotted lands, with individual skills serving the local community, & soldiers recruited as required. National needs were served by judges called by the LORD. Care & share was ordained in the Law. It was a socialist system.

The desire for a king like other nations was because judges by priestly dynasty failed with both Eli & Samuel. It was a rejection of rule by God himself. The qualities of a king would be the qualities of a Capitalist system, with the king amassing staff & riches. Deut. 17, 1 Sam. 8. That was soon evident. The Davidic dynasty soon failed.

The British system has been dominated by kings & their lords since 1066. Common people have suffered without basic rights. The laws of the land have been made by the rich & powerful, including the religious leaders, bishops being members of the House of Lords.

Only socialist pressure has given us the basic rights we have. Now the country is governed by Johnson & Cummings, our rights are disappearing. Even the freedom of the press is being restricted. Privilege & money are in power.

 

"The qualities of a king would be like the qualities of a capitalist system"

Good grief nothing like just making stuff up to fit the desired outcome. Socialusm/communism/marxism is all the same thing and no matter how you dress it up it is all evil. It robs people of freedom and enslaves the masses for "the good of alll".

If you look at Venezuela which has been recently destroyed by socialism/communism/marxism and say I want me some of that then you are sick

 

Above excerpted from post #3.
My tax info may be out of date as my last experience with capital gains was in 2014, in reference to our timber sale in 2013. At that time, capital gains by high-income folks were taxed at 25%, lesser-income people at 15%, and near-median income earners like myself paid no taxes if capital gains were sufficiently modest (as were ours.) The new tax laws may have changed that, but I doubt it mandates zero taxes on capital gains no matter how great. That said, I cannot deny that there remain other tax strategies available only to the very rich.

Also, I think there are degrees to socialism. Offering any kind of government assistance (welfare, SNAP, medicaid) is one level, and few would argue that all "safety nets" be eliminated. Complete government takeover of all means of production (the Venezuela example) is at the far end, has not worked yet, and is far different from Israel under the judges. I also don't put social security into socialism despite its name. Instead it mandates that government be the manager one's retirement account that's jointly funded by employee and employer.

 

Article cited -
1. Socialism is Based on a Materialistic Worldview
According to socialists like Bernie Sanders, the greatest problem in the world is the unequal distribution of wealth.
His website declares: "The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of our time."
This betrays a fundamentally materialistic worldview, which is the basis of socialism.

Likewise capitalism, which has as its goal the accumulation of wealth.
In principle, the capitalist aims to use available resources to increase those resources. Those resources may not be his.

By contrast, socialism seeks to provide sufficiency, enough & to share, from available resources.

2. Socialism Punishes Virtue
Socialists want to distribute wealth to individuals according to their need, regardless of virtue.
As Karl Marx, famously said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Not at all. Marx' statement is an encouragement to be virtuous, sharing what we have so that the needy are no longer needy. Virtue does not mean getting rich while the poor are in need.

3. Socialism Endorses Stealing
Barack Obama once defended his socialist policies to a little girl by saying, "We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money. If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?"

On the contrary, by that example, socialism encourages sharing. Also encourages/enforces the rich to recognise that there are needy who can be supplied out of their surplus. 10% tax doesn't make the rich poor, nor does paying their staff a living wage.
In truth, the payment of low wages is stealing from the poor.
A problem with aid is that it is supplied to, and handled by the rich on behalf of the poor. Too much gets syphoned off.

4. Socialism Encourages Envy and Class Warfare
Socialists demonize the rich, blaming all of society's problems on them.

So does capitalism. And defence of their capital is a major cause of military war. Armament manufacture is a major industry. Much research & finance goes into the development of weapons which are used to control poor countries.
Are the rich to be blamed in this situation ??

19 “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.​

Mary Brooksbank, who started work in the Scottish Jute mills at 12 before WW1, wrote the lament -

Oh dear me, the warld is ill divided
Them that works the hardest are the least provided
I maun bide contented, dark days or fine
For there's nae much pleasure livin' affen ten and nine.​

5. Socialism Seeks to Destroy Marriage & Family
A little known fact about socialism is that, from its beginning, it has sought to destroy marriage and family.

She's looking for trouble - desperate to make a case! Socialists are people like us who love & care for their families.
The capitalists in control make laws to criminalise the poor. The British colonies - including America before independence - were populated by victims of the "game laws" which made them criminals for catching rabbits to feed their families. As a song from the 1840s puts it -

.... they scorn the poor man as a thief ...​

When did socialism begin? John Ball (died 1381) preached -

When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?​

Gerald Winstanley in 1649 after the English civil war set up the Levellers/Diggers movement whereby the common people sought the right to subsist & provide for their families from waste land they were cultivating.
The landowners/capitalists soon used their military power against them to keep them in subservience. The poor were not allowed to become "capitalists."

 

5. Socialism Seeks to Destroy Marriage & Family
A little known fact about socialism is that, from its beginning, it has sought to destroy marriage and family.

The rich employers - capitalists - have always taken advantage of their female employees, begetting poor bastards & making the girls unmarriageable. In the UK "workhouses" were set up which separated mothers & children, husbands & wives. These continued well into the last century.

In Ireland they had the "Magdalene laundries" which did a similar job. Life imprisonment for the violated girls who would lose their babies by adoption immediately after very early weaning.

 

yet, still some will claim Church practiced it in Acts!

 

Acts 2:44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

Acts 4:32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.
36 And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus, 37 having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet

 

Did they practice it or not then?

 

Yea we all know what the verses are and its not socialism because its not coerced by government. It was done of their own free will. Not sure why that needs explaining.

 

Good point, as they could that due to them early on in church age actually really practicing loving the Lord Jesus and each other as God intended....

 

#11's responses to 2 and 5 (from the OP link) lead me to comment.
2. Marx was a romantic who thought that people were basically good and would act unselfishly if freed from the overseers. That view ignores the scriptural portrait of humankind as fallen creatures who tend toward selfishness, especially those not indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Pure Marxism goes beyond socialism into full humanism, and nothing like it will work until Jesus returns.

5. Someone wiser than I once said, "A day I haven't learned something is a day I've wasted." Here I thought that the first waves of British immigrants to New England came mainly for religious freedom and now I learned they were forced here because they killed rabbits - that the European settlement of the American colonies was, evidently, much the same process as Australia. (Hyperbole, but so was your comment about who settled the British colonies - true in some instances but far from ubniversal.)

Most nations with higher standards of living, including the US, employ both capitalism and socialism in varying proportions. The pure form of each (if such purity exists) will be subject to abuse unless one repeals Lord Acton's law. (And our sin nature)

 

Thanks for a proper reply OaS; I hate one liners. You've obviously read & considered my points.

Marx & Engels were writing from around 1850-90. Their ideas have seen a lot of development, to such an extant that if Marx were alive today he would say what he is quoted as saying -

In 1882, Engels claimed that Marx had criticized self-proclaimed Marxist Paul Lafargue by saying that if Lafargue's views were considered Marxist, then "one thing is certain and that is that I am not a Marxist!"​

The acceptance that we are all fallen creatures tending to selfishness means that some sort of regulative approach like Marx' is needed. In a perfect world we would be behaving like the Acts Christians. That does not mean the thread title is true.

Agreed - I'm still learning & appreciate the reasoned challenge to my views. The first English colonists were the Pilgrim Fathers, followed by many others seeking religious freedom. So these were heretics (aka Gospel Christians) fleeing persecution. The English established church had a very precise definition of Christianity according to the "Book of Common Prayer." Have you read the "Act of Uniformity?" Very severe punishments were enforced. As I said previously, Laws were enacted to make criminals of otherwise law-abiding people."

There were also many "adventurers" using the colonies for plunder & other evil purposes. Many came home rich & became "capitalists."

The Quakers had a more benign attitude.

I don't think Lord Acton's law is up for repeal. However, pressure from the people affected moderates the corrupting effects of power. That's where socialism comes in.

Hopefully too "common grace" together with Christian influence will have a moderating effect on Lord Acton's law, as the overall absolute power is of God.

 

Excellent response, and I appreciate your response in not citing the state of Georgia re: point 5, as many of the early immigrants to there were indeed jailbirds.