Why are most Christians politically right wing?

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,263
5,984
64
✟333,248.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Incorrect. Bible says to obey the laws of the rulers. Back then, there were laws of rulers for taxes and goods to be redistributed. So that is simply incorrect. And most people would not give without legislation, because we live in a fallen world. Why do you only see it as "forced" that's often suspicious as if people are greedy and want to hold on to their money. Socialism is a good concept and those who disagree with it are usually greedy. I'm a Christian who doesn't care that my tax money goes to programs that help the poor, because I WANT to help the poor. That should be everyone's mindset.

And where in scripture does Jesus or the apostles say people should be forced to give as a social political agenda? You want the give? That's great! So do I! And I do. I pay taxes just like everyone else. I also give freely out of my own pocket besides taxes. But it's not biblical to force my neighbor or brother to give. It's a political agenda and as such is not commanded by scripture. Please quote the scripture that says you have the right to make your neighbor give.
 
Upvote 0

ArmenianJohn

Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist
Jan 30, 2013
8,962
5,550
New Jersey (NYC Metro)
✟205,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
That's a misunderstanding of the early church. While there were churches where people sold their belongings and gave to each other it was NEVER commanded to be so. The churches gave to each other because because they wanted to and not because they were commanded or forced to.

Socialism is forced upon people. It is forced giving using the power of government. That is not a biblical concept.
What misunderstanding? I never said it was "commanded". I said it was the practice of the early church. It wasn't commanded, nor was it forced. Socialism does not have to be forced. Do you have insurance? That is a form of socialism that is completely voluntary and not forced on anyone.

Where you come up with some of those ideas I have no idea. I think you're just repeating rhetoric that's been fed to you by pundits that you follow. There's no basis in truth for what you claim.

Socialism is absolutely Biblical. Here is a lesson for you right from the Word of God:

Acts 4
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33
And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
36
And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

You know what that's called when people give their wealth to a central authority who then spreads it out? It's called "redistribution of wealth". The Apostles did a redistribution of wealth for the greater common good of the people of the Church. Notcie that "Neithe was there any among them that lacked" - it doesn't say that they had to earn what they got, it says that they pooled their wealth and redistributed it so that the ones who had less got more.

Can you show me where this passage says it was "forced upon people"? No, you can't. So much for your false assertion that it's forced upon people.

Is this coming right from the Bible? Yes, it is. So much for your assertion that it's not Biblical because it's right there, right in God's Word.

Like I said, I don't know where you get your information but it very obviously isn't from God's Word. I got my information from the Word of God and it's sharper than any sword and it sliced and diced and tore asunder your misinformation with just a few verses.
 
Upvote 0

ArmenianJohn

Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist
Jan 30, 2013
8,962
5,550
New Jersey (NYC Metro)
✟205,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I find it interesting that the majority of posts here are attacking Christians and very vile towards those that are not liberal. The left is doing the very thing they often accuse the right of doing. The vehemence from the left is much stronger than from the right.
I find it interesting that the majority of posts here are attacking Christians who are liberal. The right does exactly what they get pegged for by others. The derision and attacks from the right are much stronger and more frequent and more mean than anything from the left.
 
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I’m going to try and “condense” your logic: please forgive me if I am in error and correct me,

Are you saying
“The ‘religious right’ became so antithetical to the ‘help the poor and needy’ parts of Christianity BECAUSE the ‘irreligious-left’ HATES Christianity!”

Have I missed something?

Actually... that is pretty close...... this may help you to understand somewhat?

North American churches should each have their own currency!

The religious right also has ignored the positive implications of:

Genesis 11:6 "And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

Ecclesiastes 10:19 "A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things."

and....... USA history.....

Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy

In 1972, the United States Treasury Department was asked to compute the amount of interest that would have been paid if that 400 million dollars would have been borrowed at interest instead of being issued by Abraham Lincoln. They did some computations, and a few weeks later, the United States Treasury Department said the United States Government saved 4 billion dollars in interest because Lincoln had created his own money. So you can about imagine how much the Government has paid and how much we owe solely on the basis of interest.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Yet it has been shown that conservatives, most of whom are religious, are more generous givers than liberals. Much of the guesswork that runs in the opposite direction is just that, therefore.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,037
13,063
✟1,077,154.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I am not a sola scriptura Christian. I think we have to look at the Bible in terms of our own time and culture. We share this earth with 7.1 billion people, and we share our responsibilities on earth with 7.1 billion people. In Jesus' time, people were able to help those around them in small community groups. That still takes place. Yesterday we helped my friend's mom evacuate her possessions from an 1840's home that is likely to be flooded by Monday.

On the other hand, if a severe climactic crisis hits anywhere in the U.S.--which is more and more likely due to our government's misguided economic policies which give big business free rein, uncaring for the future--government needs to step in. Communities can't do much to help themselves, because they are all in the same lifeboat. Charities can help, but as I've written here dozens of times, we've tried it with charities alone for 6,000 years, with overall disastrous results.

There are communities in continuous crisis. How much is your church's food pantry helping people in the inner city 50 miles away, or the little rural towns with 20% unemployment rates?

Now let's look at the world. Without a gigantic effort--through governments, the U.N.--how do we solve crises like those in Darfur, or the Sudan, or refugee crises as we see in Syria, or Central America (oops, I forgot! We don't do ANYTHING about those poor people, do we, except listen to the rabble-rouser in chief incite hatred).
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,028
23,939
Baltimore
✟551,774.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Yet it has been shown that conservatives, most of whom are religious, are more generous givers than liberals. Much of the guesswork that runs in the opposite direction is just that, therefore.

Conservatives are only more generous when the metric used is donations given to tax-deductible charities. This sounds like an obvious "duh", but the important factor that often goes overlooked is that that group includes churches, and conservatives tend to be more religious than liberals. When religiosity and income are accounted for, the conservative generosity advantage disappears.

When measuring Republicans vs Democrats instead of liberals vs conservatives, Republicans still have a bit of an edge, but only because they're more likely to donate larger amounts of money to their own church congregations.

Source:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1100129/who-gives.pdf
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The mistake that is always involved with these sorts of questions goes as follows--

Free Enterprise/Capitalism, which has given the world the highest standard of living in history, for both the rich and the poor, is always compared using its worst examples...

against the theory of Socialism, not Socialism in practice.

In practice, Socialism is a failure. Some of the reasons for that are that when all power is given to the state, domestic competition is prohibited, and bureaucrats are put in charge of the decision-making that would otherwise be made by experts in their businesses, efficiency is reduced.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,028
23,939
Baltimore
✟551,774.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The mistake that is always involved with these sorts of questions goes as follows--

Free Enterprise/Capitalism, which has given the world the highest standard of living in history, for both the rich and the poor, is always compared using its worst examples...

against the theory of Socialism, not Socialism in practice.

In practice, Socialism is a failure. Some of the reasons for that are that when all power is given to the state, domestic competition is prohibited, and bureaucrats are put in charge of the decision-making that would otherwise be made by experts in their businesses, efficiency is reduced.

You complained about judging capitalism by its worst examples and then judged socialism by its worst examples. Classic.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,183
US
✟1,441,250.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The concept has its roots in the bible. It's based around sharing, sharing came from scripture originally. The original kingdoms of biblical times had socialist policies. But I agree you can argue there was capitalism in the bible too because it did talk about private property as well. That's why I like democratic socialism the most personally.

The concept of private property is not, in itself, what "capitalism" means. Even a Communist system can permit private property. Don't confuse "free enterprise" with "capitalism," because capitalism itself will tend to destroy free enterprise.

The closest scripture comes to suggesting capitalism is this:

But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. -- Matthew 25

That's a fairly good description of simple capitalism. And it should be noted that the person speaking is not being credited as morally virtuous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArmenianJohn
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,183
US
✟1,441,250.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think you have a skewed vision as to what “being a Christian” is if one needs to be “compelled” by biblical command to do the right thing!

And yet, there even is bible command to do the right thing, and they still don't want to do it.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,183
US
✟1,441,250.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is a great example of scriptures taken out of context. Happens all the time. Here is a larger piece of this scripture that she's some light on the subject.

Just as you excel in everything — in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in diligence of every kind, and in your love for us — see that you excel in this gift too.I am not issuing an order; rather, I am testing the genuineness of your love against the diligence of others.As I say, in regard to this matter I am only giving an opinion. A year ago you were not only the first to take action but the first to want to do so. Now it would be to your advantage - 2 Corinthians 8:7-8,10 Bible Gateway passage: 2 Corinthians 8:7-8, 2 Corinthians 8:10 - Complete Jewish Bible

As I have said Everytime this comes up. Neither Christ nor the apostles commanded that we force people to give. They never commanded socialism nor did they command that governments be socialist. Just like they never commanded that people or governments be capitalistic.

And so you slap the boogeyman name on what the bible states and run away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArmenianJohn
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,183
US
✟1,441,250.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One thing you miss is that the socialism practiced within the church was WITHIN THE CHURCH and it was voluntary. It NEVER was governmental by the church and it wasn't forced.

So let's practice what scripture gives us it in the church instead of slapping a boogeyman name on it and running away.

In fact people in the church that did not work did not receive the help.

Which means that contribution was mandatory, because there were no hospitals or insurance polices back then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArmenianJohn
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I’m going to try and “condense” your logic: please forgive me if I am in error and correct me,

Are you saying
“The ‘religious right’ became so antithetical to the ‘help the poor and needy’ parts of Christianity BECAUSE the ‘irreligious-left’ HATES Christianity!”

Have I missed something?

I do believe that a shift is coming where the religious right will become more compassionate and wise though....

.... Pastor Rick Joyner:
"The Lord is now preparing courageous leaders who
will be willing to fight a spiritual civil war in order to set men free.
The main issue, as in the American Civil War, will be slavery versus
freedom. The secondary issue, which will be the primary issue for some,
will be money
.

Just as the American Civil War at time looked like it would destroy the entire
nation, that which is coming upon the church will sometimes appear as if it will
bring the end of the church. However, just as the United States not only
survived but went on to become the most powerful nation on earth, the same
is going to happen to the church. The church will not be destroyed, but the institutions
and doctrines that have kept men in spiritual slavery will be" (Rick Joyner, The Final Quest, page 39)

If I am not mistaken you will probably enjoy the first ten paragraphs of this book:
The Final Quest [English] Rick Joyner
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,346
10,239
Earth
✟137,488.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Socialism is a societal construct and it is not taught by scripture.
I don’t think that (oh, say) kidney transplants are taught anywhere in the Scriptures...should Christians refrain from having anything to do with them?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,346
10,239
Earth
✟137,488.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
I do believe that a shift is coming where the religious right will become more compassionate and wise though....
I, for one, won’t be holding my breath for this.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
There are a lot of illusions built into the way people look at these things. For example, we could just as easily argue that basically conservative Christian people built the (denominational) hospitals that continue to serve cities across the country, as well as adoption agencies, schools, food banks and so on--before governments got into the act.

So today liberals think that conservatives are scrooges while they, the liberals, are so concerned and charitable that they let the government carry the burden of caring for the poor and unfortunate (for which they will also take credit).
 
Upvote 0

DanishLutheran

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2018
404
184
41
Aarhus
✟25,867.00
Country
Denmark
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
(several posts, because catch-up)

But everything else in the right wing you can argue is completely against Christianity and what Jesus taught..

You CAN argue anything. You can argue that the moon is a piece of green cheese. You'd be wrong, but you CAN.

Just as you are wrong in the above.

Most Christians are on the right, because decades of development has shown very clearly that the left despises Christians and seem to harm them socially, economically, politically, and, yes, religiously.
This is not just an American thing, but a general Western thing.
Overlooking the principle of self-reliance if at all possible, which is clearly Biblical, it is a case of
"Well, the left wants to indoctrinate my children against the tenets of my faith, AND force me to choose between making a living on one hand, OR my faith on the other. I think I'll go with the other team."



There is nothing wrong with socialism...



The ashes of a hundred million people dead (and counting) because of socialism would disagree with you. As would those Cubans and Venezuelans who managed to escape to freedom.



Psychologists have said that conservatives have authoritarian personalities. Those Christians whose theology is most rigid and inflexible and who are focused on black and white morality respond to a wannabe dictator like Trump--according to psychologists.



Yeah. "According to psychologists".
=
"I heard from someone somewhere".

Also, Trump is no more of a wannabe-dictator than Obama was. The office of the POTUS is, arguably, a bit too powerful, but that's:

1: A matter of opinion.

2: The same regardless of who's living in the White House




What wing is Christ in?



Neither.





I'm seeing a common theme here from everyone... but what's so bad about socialism?



See above.



I don't consider myself left wing (I'm not anything, just a believer) but I am not against socialism. It's not a concept that is unbiblical.



It very much is. Atheism is at the core of socialist ideology. And that's before we get into.....you know.....the oceans of blood on its hands. And the way socialists persecute Christians every chance they get.



In fact Jesus always taught about giving to the poor.



But never about making the government force others to give to the poor.





It seems like anti-socialism is an American thing, not a Christian thing.



It SHOULD be a Christian thing. Because if there's one thing history shows, it is that whereever socialism arises, it tries to eradicate the Church. Of course it never entirely succeeds. The gates of hell shall not prevail against Her, of course, but that's still no reason to egg it on.



Some of these things can be traced back to the Levitical law (like the death penalty) but not the new covenant law taught by Jesus.



Hiya, Marcion! I thought you died in the mid-2nd century. How did you manage to live for this long?

No, socialism is about wealth distribution... You still have freedom...



False. Go look at every single socialist country that exists now, or has existed in the past, and you'll see the exact opposite of this.

And this is clearly more moral and what Jesus taught in the bible.



So Jesus thought that religion is the opiate of the masses ( = Enforced atheism), and that the Apostles should instead concern themselves with creating paradise now by working to overthrow the Roman Empire, and confiscate everyone's property so they could then "redistribute" as they saw fit?
No. And anyone who claims this has never actually read the Bible.



It is is moral and more of what Jesus taught about.



Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Goebbels was wrong.



I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of socialism was incorporated when Jesus sets up his kingdom on earth.



Then you WILL be surprised when He doesn't.



I would say it is selfless, because you think about the common good, and loving your neighbours, rather than just the individualistic aspect and focusing on the self.

Yeah, sure, and I'm the Chinese Emperor. Now, kowtow, peasants!
kawaii.gif




But the principle of the system is moral and definitely in line with what Jesus taught.



Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Goebbels was wrong.



It is only forceful if you see it that way...



kawaii.gif

Right, Morpheus, but outside of the universe of the Matrix-trilogy, there are such things as objective truths.



If you see it as giving back to the common good, and if you have the attitude of not being greedy



Fun fact: Socialists are the most greedy of all

And socialism the most greedy system of all. It demands everyone's wealth, and then claims to "distribute" it back as it sees fit.



Socialism exists in the US as well. Only the money does not go towards social programs but more towards corporations and military spending.



Please, oh, PLEASE don't tell me you subscribe to the ridiculous idea "If something is tax-funded, that's socialism"?



Jesus would rather money go back to people than to wars.



Jesus would rather money go to the people who earned them, than to greedy Party officials.
See? Two can play the "take Jesus hostage in a strawman-argument"-game.



No, because individual liberties include the right to basic health care or basic shelter for people who can't pay for it.



That's an ideological statement.
Not that I disagree that those things are good (and, also, not socialist in nature. The world's first welfare state was Bismarck's Germany), but let's keep things real here.



And with a completely capitalist society this is impossible. So individual liberties are protected when you have some socialism.



"Some" socialism
kawaii.gif


That's like saying "a little bit pregnant".
And no. Individual liberties are not protected in socialist countries. Again: Look at all past and present socialist countries.

N But what socialism is supposed to be, and the principles of it, are indeed moral and help people.

No. No, there's nothing moral or helpful about militant atheism, and the narrative that society should be guided by the Party towards a communist utopia at some point in the future, while in the present running a "dictatorship of the proletariat"



As for the left, even though what they believe is wrong, at least many of liberals motives are right and they really do want to help people.



Almost everyone wants to help people. Some people, at least. In that sense, almost everyone's "motives are right".



While a lot of right wingers care more about themselves rather than other people (not all, but many do).

You just described leftwingers there. And conveniently ignored that it's been documented that conservatives are vastly more likely to donate to charity than leftists are.



You know Jesus Christ would have been considered a liberal at the time when he was preaching the gospel on earth?



Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Goebbels was wrong.



As for what in the left is Christian, the focus on giving back and wealth distribution and socialist aspects definitely are.



There's no more focus on "giving back" in leftist ideology, than there is on love in sexual assault crimes.
The key difference between the left and Christianity, is that in the latter, wealth redistribution is voluntary, and every....single....example supports this.

This is not true with leftism.



As well as letting people in away from oppressive countries so we may preach the gospel to them and show them Jesus (of course that's not the motive of most liberals, but at least they are not for completely closing off borders).



Open borders, thereby cursing your own people and country to suffer the effects of uncontrolled migration is most definitely NOT a Christian thing to do.
The reason leftists are in favor of this is EXACTLY because of its consequences: The erosion of society, social cohesion and in order to use the illegal immigrants as tools to grab power.



And some other things like caring for the environment (some liberals worship the creation which is wrong, but respecting and appreciating God's creation is right)..



Socialist countries are some of the most polluting societies on the planet.
kawaii.gif




And basically caring and looking out for others regardless of their status would be more Christian and in line with the teachings of Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

DanishLutheran

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2018
404
184
41
Aarhus
✟25,867.00
Country
Denmark
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Which is a point AGAINST leftism, not for it. Anyone who disagrees can go ahead and try telling a leftist in a Western country something they disagree with. Verbal abuse is going to be the very least of the reactions.



Rehabilitation support programs rather than the death penalty are also more in line with Jesus,.



Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Goebbels was wrong.

Also, socialist countries most definitely use capital punishment - and not just for murder, but for the crime of not agreeing with the regime, as well.



as Jesus said anyone could come to repentance so criminals should be given the chance to come to repentance as well just as the apostle Paul did after being a murderous criminal.



1: Non-sequitur.
2: Yes, criminals SHOULD get a chance to come to repentence.........while waiting for execution.

You're also forgetting that Jesus, who is God, commanded the use of CP for certain crimes. Murder being one of those crimes.



While the pharisees would want to stone and kill sinners, Jesus saves sinners and doesn't condemn them.



Jesus stood up to the hypocrisy and goading that the pharisees were trying - trying to lure Him into a trap.
Again: Do remember who gave the laws in the first place: Jesus.



I know this is all a generalization,



No manure, Sherlock
doh.gif




but many of the right wing values .. are not Christian at all and many other values on the left are.



Yeah, no.



I myself am neither left or right, I am simply a believer in Christ and have an identity in Christ and not so focused on politics.



kawaii.gif


Yeah, sure. That's why you've spent several pages already singing the praise of the one ideology in the history of humankind that has the most blood on its hands: Because you're "just Christian" and "neither left or right"
kawaii.gif




I'm just going by what I observe.



So are we all



Well that is bad but what I mean about socialism is simply the principles of fair wealth distribution like how it's done in Scandinavia.



*deep breath*
We......are not.....socialists. Again:

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Goebbels was wrong.



I don't mean oppressive policies against the freedom of religion.

THAT IS PART AND PARCEL OF SOCIALISM FOR FIDDLESTICK'S SAKE
kawaii.gif




I don't believe socialism teaches that unless you have an extreme group and that is their agenda.



What you believe and don't believe does not enter into it. It plainly does, and EVERY SINGLE socialist society in existence is the proof you need.



It's not proven that that's the goal.



Of course not. And it's also not proven that Israel wasn't behind 9/11, therefore it was, right?
kawaii.gif




We had a Baptist preacher who became the leader of the CCF a social democratic party often called a 'Red' by the right and left in Canada. He ended up being considered the greatest Canadian ever for the work he did for all with his social justice platform. So he kind of doesn't seem to fit the picture you paint.



Social democrats are decidedly NOT socialists, and any ideologically aware Social Democrat will be the first to tell you.....and be quite offended if you call him/her/attack helicopter a "socialist"
It was the Social Democrats who kept the socialists from any real influence in post-WW2 Scandinavia, and the actual socialists still call them "class traitors" because of it. Many Social Democrats who'd been in the resistence during the occupation kept their weapons for a LONG time, juuuust in case the socialists decided to come pay an unwanted visit.



Socialism is Biblical and was the norm for the early Christians.



Funny. I don't remember reading anything in either the Scriptures or the Early Church Fathers about hordes of Christians storming the Palace of the Roman Emperor, and demand the installation of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to be administrated by the Church, whether anyone wanted this or not.
You.....DO know that you can't just invent meanings of words that suit your narrative and expect everyone else to simply go along with those new invented meanings, right?



Socialist nations are just as free as capitalist ones, maybe more so.



scratch.gif


Yeah, so free in Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, China (which, arguably, has been on a pendulum swing away from socialism, but is now going back in that direction), DDR, USSR, etc.....
And, again: NO! Scandinavia is not socialist. Look further up my post.



Socialism doesn't mean taking wealth from those who work hard and giving to those who don't ---- you're thinking of capitalism.



No, he really isn't.



As far as I've seen, the attitudes among the left are mostly driven by concern for the poor and less-advantaged



kawaii.gif


The modern left (at least in the west) is the first to denigrate the poor and less-advantaged when they do not fall in line behind its agenda.
They have absolutely NO fiddlesticks to give about the "poor and less-advantaged" except as sheep to lead to the polls.



It's not about power at all.



That's all it's about



It's about the people. Socialism is for the people, not for the government.



No. Socialism is for the socialists. To the socialists, people are means to that end.



I'm sure the government doesn't like spending its money to go back to the people and would rather raise salaries for their public servants... So that common argument doesn't work.



.....huh?
That doesn't even make sense!
kawaii.gif




And a lot of what you write is pure assumption and emotion, like "being too reliant on the government and not yourself", etc. It's pure psychological speculation and emotion.



"A thief thinks everyone steals"

- Danish proverb.



People still have free will whether you have socialism or not and can choose to their own path



As long as that path is also the Party's path, or they'll end up under intense surveillance, and the slightest misstep leading to a KZ-camp.

The idea of "personal freedom" in a socialist country is a joke, and not a funny one either, as everyone who's lived in a socialist country and wasn't one of the party elites will tell you.



Your argument is very common but it's all based on fear of what may happen and emotions and psychology rather than facts.



Again: No. The argument against socialism is an argument from observable reality, while all that socialists offer is "That wasn't REAL socialism....it'll be better this time, because trust me bro"



You should consider the socialist policies and how they work,



That's what those of us who are against socialism have done, and it's the very reason why we're against it.



not make assumptions .



It's only an assumption, in the same way that it's an assumption that if I drop an apple in mid-air, it'll hit the ground.



It just needs to be implemented correctly. In countries like Sweden and Norway, social democracy works very well.



Again: SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IS NOT SOCIALISM

And actual social-democrats are the first to point that out, rather forcefully.
And they're called "class traitors" by actual socialists.



We don't need to go to the extreme and claim it will lead to authoritarianism. Political leaders are the problem, not socialism itself.

Ah yes. And nazism would have worked splendidly, if not for Hitler
kawaii.gif


No. The root of that ideology was rotten, therefore its results will inevitably be as well. As the case is with socialism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DanishLutheran

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2018
404
184
41
Aarhus
✟25,867.00
Country
Denmark
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
If conservative Christians think that Donald Trump and the Republicans have any real intentions for delivering on their anti-LGBT and Pro-Life commitments, just dial back to 2017-2018 when they had control of the White House, Senate, House and the Supreme Court!



If they couldn't deliver when they have control of all 3 branches of government then never will!



I think most realize this, but also realize that the Republican party is the party that doesn't want to destroy them out of spite, and the party that isn't going to make them choose between their faith and their livelihoods, for one.
And thus hold their noses and live with the rest. Quite sensible too.



The Believers Share Their Possessions (Acts 4:31-35)



And none of that was socialism, because there was no attempt to dethrone the Roman Emperor, and establish an empire-wide "dictatorship of the proletariat", thence to be spread to the whole world in a "world revolution".
Also note that surrender of property was entirely VOLUNTARY (which is exactly the opposite of what socialism is).
It's an older meme, but it does not check out.



Sweden, Norway, Denmark are social democracies.



Again: Social democracy IS NOT SOCIALISM.



They have a highly regulated form of capitalism that serves the common good. American-style libertarianism and general mistrust of institutions is alien to their mindset, because they understand human beings as fundamentally social in nature.


Actually, it's because we've traditionally been highly homogenous, monocultural societies with a high degree of mutual trust, which multicultural societies are simply incapable of. And now that this is changing (thanks to the left and its desire to import people to vote for it), that trust is declining, and support for those programs - while still MUCH higher than in, say, the US - is on the decline as well.



Many nations have systems far more “socialist” than anything proposed by the current batch of Democrats, yet have thriving economies and healthy populations.



One is not "more socialist" or "less socialist". Just as one is not "slightly pregnant".
No socialist country has healthy populations and thriving economies. China - the exception that some socialists liked to use as their go-to-example - is only swinging back towards full socialism under the current leader, and the jury is still out on the long-term consequences of that.



1) Nobody was forcing these people to be "Believers" or to share their possessions



Thank you ;) You managed the rare feat of making the correct point, while thinking you made the wrong one.



3) Given that the early "Believers" decided to share their possessions while under the influence of the Holy Spirit, strongly suggests that God favored a communal societies based on equality/sharing - rather than those characterized by extreme inequality of "haves and have-nots!"



Do note that the early church was NOT socialist, because sharing of property and value was voluntary - because people WANTED to share, not compelled.

No one is against sharing willingly. Most sensible people is against socialism. That's not contradictory - quite the contrary.



Private charity isn’t remotely large enough or comprehensive enough to handle the magnitude of the social services that our population need - that’s why government-funded welfare programs were started in the first place.



Not arguing that, because it's not relevant to the point made.



Most of northern and western Europe.



None of our countries are socialist, nor fit the actual description of socialism.



There's still an upper class and a poor class in these European countries, no? And I would argue that they rely on the US military for defensive needs and therefore have more to contribute to their social programs. They also benefit from our advances in medicine, by the way. These European countries don't have the freedoms we have either. You can be jailed or fined for speech (Count Dankula and Tommy Robinson come to mind) and they don't have the ability to defend themselves largely (2nd amendment).



(bolding mine)

I agree with all of this, and especially the bolded part is a very good point.



Why would it be surprising? Jesus' teachings are rooted far more in socialism than capitalism...



Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Goebbels was wrong.



I'm not sure why you would think capitalism is better.



Because reality has shown it to be superior to socialism.



Socialism is far more moral and biblical.



Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Goebbels was wrong.



That is not true. That is conspiracy and that is not what socialism is... That is an extreme case, a conspiracy, and not true socialism,



(bolding mine)

AAAAAND there we have it folks!
kawaii.gif


That is exactly what socialism is, and everywhere socialism has reared its demonic head, that's what has happened.



but a separate topic altogether which I don't agree on. That has nothing to do with socialism, which is good and moral wealth distribution.



kawaii.gif


No. It's not a seperate topic. It's the same topic. And yes, it IS socialism, despite your desperate desire to change the meaning of the word to fit your narrative.



The kingdoms of the early church were all socialist systems...



kawaii.gif


No. And:
Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. Goebbels was wrong.



Come on man, don't read conspiracy theories so much and actually read the principles of socialism



Take your own advice, please. This does not mean "some random blogger on thinkprogress, vice, etc", but "the actual works of actual historical socialist leaders, as well as learning from the actual examples of socialism in practise"



and realize they are selfless, good, and moral.



That is exactly what they aren't.



socialism has existed looong before the 20th century and Marx's principles.



kawaii.gif


No.
Anachronism isn't cool, mkay?

Again: You don't get to simply redefine the meaning of words because that new meaning suits your narrative.



Yikes. Are you gonna claim anyone who uses the roads and bridges paid for by taxes indicates they don't have enough faith? They don't have faith in God to not need a bridge and they should teleport to the other side by their faith? That's the biggest deflection ever.



No.
Your equating of "anything government funded = socialism" is the biggest deflection ever.



It is a system that benefits everyone, and that is absolutely moral to distribute wealth to help the poor.



Socialism doesn't benefit everyone. It benefits the Party leadership, and its loyal followers, while the rest of the population - those that aren't imprisoned in KZ-camps - live on bare minimum.
 
Upvote 0