Featured Socialism is not Christian

From 1 Timothy 5:

3 Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need.
5 The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help.
9 No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, 10 and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.​

Sounds to me like those comments by Oduah grossly misinterpret the passage about widows, a passage which is all about Christians, and has nothing to do with secular politics. Your frustration with inaccuracies is understandable, but your own citations are worse, and overall your assessment of Socialism is dead wrong.

 

The framers of the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America recognized that our rights are God-given, not state-given. They divested themselves of the shackles of tyranny they once wore under the rule of the despot, King George III. Socialism does not recognize God-given rights. It only recognizes the rights granted by the state. The main differences between Socialism and Communism are that Communism controls the means of production and does not allow for ownership of private property. Socialism is a godless system in which Christianity is persecuted.

The United States of America was a grand experiment when it was born in 1776. The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. This statement of God-given rights and among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are what has made the American experiment different than other world governments. Perfect? No government among men is perfect.

Right now the rights of Americans are being assailed. Abortion has murdered 61,000,000 unborn Americans. The sanctity of marriage has been perverted by the state. Most American Christians grieve over these things and many are fighting back against the tide. Still, I would rather live in the United States than any other nation. Even though it is under attack, liberty still flourishes here. My grandparents from Scotland and England sold all their possessions to book passage on a ship to take them to New York so they could raise their children in America. They wanted liberty and opportunity. I am thankful for their decision. I am also thankful that I am still able to worship God without the interference of the state. Time will tell if that God-given right is usurped by godless politicians.

 

Yes, the basic problem is that they want the “nice” stuff applied, but have zero regard for the “not so nice.” This is how they end up getting justice completely reversed so that victims are treated like criminals and criminals like victims. With that sort of backward mentality, it’s no wonder they can’t understand a political system that makes sense, but can embrace one that is nonsense—stealing from those who produce to distribute to those who won’t.

 

I also like how Lev 23:22 is supposed to support government theft from those who produce. Seems to me the best you could make of that is people ought to be able to find an odd job for menial subsistence, the point being that one would have to work for whatever he got, not rely on a handout, and especially not from the government.

 

This has just been posted on facebook - remembering the vicious takeover of Chile by Pinochet -
Post by those concerned for the oppression of the people of Britain by the racist government of Johnson & Cummings. How could our country have been so deceived by such a duo when we had an honest & consistent socialist leader in Jeremy Corbyn?

A beautiful & expressive song.

 

That is correct. The difference is government enforcement. The Acts church would better be described as communialism not socialism.

When the government uses force to accomplish what the church should do out of Christian love, all sorts of mismanagement and fraud occur.

peace to you

 

The Hutterites, a branch of Mennonites, are communal in their Christian practice. Most communes are in Canada, but more have moved back into the US over the last 20 years.

 

I don’t know a lot about groups that practice communalism. I think it would be fair to say there is little innovation or change in their way of life. They are content with what they have.

peace to you

 

I'm puzzled as to why most of the contributors to this thread - & to the forum as a whole - are antisocial. It's been going on in my lifetime since the 50s & the McCarthy oppression of honest folk who were simply concerned for their fellow men,

The first 10 years of my life the songs of Paul Robeson were sung as lullabies & simply for enjoyment. I was my mummy's "Curly headed baby" and her "Fat little fellow with his Mammy's eyes." Then they stopped singing his songs & playing the 78s. Years later I asked & was told he was a Communist.

Our Local Authority was Socialist & a new theatre was named "Paul Robeson Theatre." About 30 years ago I studied Robeson's life, bought CDs & films & did talks locally on "Paul Robeson, the man & his music."

But I digress.

"This is how they end up getting justice completely reversed so that victims are treated like criminals and criminals like victims." Interesting point! Robeson was never charged with a crime, yet his passport was taken away & theatres were closed to him & his records withdrawn from sale. He lost millions in income. Other performers also lost out.

But I think you were making the point that low paid & people who aren't working shouldn.t be helped. Let them starve. Any financial help given is robbery from the rich. I would counter that the low paid are being robbed by the rich. All wages should be sufficient to live on - to rent a home and support a wife & children.

In the olden days of my youth I remember all my peers expecting to get a job, including apprenticeships, & so get a living wage, so they could leave their parents & be independent in their 20s.

In those days we had "Employment exchanges" (EE) through which jobs were advertised & one could apply & start work. At graduate level at got my job through the EE "Professional & Executive" department. Happy days.

Now when people go to the "Job Centre" they are told to go out & look for work - every day - if they want benefit. Job Centres don't actually have any jobs to offer! And if you do get a job it is likely to be temporary & you're soon back in the Job Centre waiting for assistance while looking for another job. And many who are chronically ill are declared "fit for work" & die without benefit.

An irony is that many Job Centre staff (on the minimum wage) are also seeking benefit!

Government is in principle "of the people, by the people, for the people." Taxes & benefits are not robbery but coordination of resources allowing provision of social services. We all benefit from the infrastructure - roads, power & water supply, refuse collection & disposal, etc. Such services at government level are vastly cheaper than any individual effort. Taxes do not make the rich poor & are not robbery. Low wages amount to robbery.

Lev. 22 doesn't demand a means test. The rich landowners (& subsistence farmers) should allow the poor to glean of their surplus.

Yes but - the church is a small minority of the population, & Christians do help the poor. There are many poor who are not Christians & though Christians help those not in the "household of faith" the rich are not so inclined & the poor would suffer more than they do without the government coordinating social services.

 

Being anti-socialism doesn’t mean someone is anti-social.

If you look through the history of governments, you see a repetition of corruption that benefit a few (relatively) connected individuals and families and not so much for everyone else.

Socialist or capitalist countries are not immune to this, and with the government in charge of people’s lives, it could be argued the corruption is even worse.

I disagree with your assertion that more people would suffer if the government were not in charge of coordinating social services. I think the opposite is true, especially at the federal level.

In every case that I can think of, when the federal government gets involved, massive corruption follows. Take healthcare, Medicare has tens of billions in fraud every year.

I believe the closer these types of decisions are made at local and state levels, the more accountable the system will be to the citizen voters and the better the system will be.

Socialist countries tend to oppress their citizens, suppress innovation, and control media to propagandize the success of their policies.

peace to you