Christian Socialism

[joebudda]

You're missing the entire point. Here is *the point* - most people are apathetic to, or unwilling to live a lifestyle which would allow *all* people a measure of equality. My opinion is that this is objectively wrong, and that the only people who would deny that are self-serving and in the wrong (again, objectively speaking).

You might be surprised how charitable I am. I would bet I have given more to charities just this year alone then you have your whole life.
Forcing others to conform to your ideas regrading the way you think they should live is just evil in my opinion. They should be free to live as they desire without your threats of violence.

The issue here is not whether or not gov't should have any control, or not control. It is that people who are generally unwilling to help those who cannot help themselves should be made to do so through the state. If those people cannot be persuaded, it is not the fault of my opinion, but there inability to see a need for compassionate action.

So because someone might not agree with you, you therefore believe they must be forced. This is why socialism fails, it is slavery.

I know you are taking a position to condemn the violence I espouse, but remember that it was my response to people acting violently out of selfish motivations. I am not proposing anything which does not already exist or happen through the IRS. In the end I guess that is the true draw of pure libertarianism - freedom to act without any undue concern for the needs of others, and the ability to scapegoat misfortune upon the victims of circumstance.

But don't forget that we are human and do care for others and often go out of our way to help others in need.

And violence used against anyone is wrong. If someone is being threatened with violence then they have the right to protect themselves. This would even mean if the IRS came knocking at your door with orders to throw you in a cage for not submitting to their extortion, you have every right to protect yourself as you see fit.

 

[PantsMcFist]

You might be surprised how charitable I am. I would bet I have given more to charities just this year alone then you have your whole life.
Forcing others to conform to your ideas regrading the way you think they should live is just evil in my opinion. They should be free to live as they desire without your threats of violence.

So because someone might not agree with you, you therefore believe they must be forced. This is why socialism fails, it is slavery.

But don't forget that we are human and do care for others and often go out of our way to help others in need.

And violence used against anyone is wrong. If someone is being threatened with violence then they have the right to protect themselves. This would even mean if the IRS came knocking at your door with orders to throw you in a cage for not submitting to their extortion, you have every right to protect yourself as you see fit.

I agree completely that people should be able to live free as they like, provided that they're freedom doesn't hurt others, and they aren't letting others fall by the wayside.

I have no interest in simply forcing people to agree with me out of hand. Most people don't actually know about the consequences of their actions and consumtion. Once educated, if they choose to continue to act harmfully, the means to act in this manner should be removed.

We do care for each other, but the situation in the world at this time is not a massive exception to the rule, caring for each other consistently is.

I'm truly glad that you are charitable. Having no idea what you make and give, I can not say whether or not it is greater than what I will ever be able to give, but I can tell you that all wealth flows up, and simply giving doesn't eliminate the social obligation we have to make responsible choices. Charity doesn't buy you freedom.

 

[Thomas49]

Speaking of redistribution of wealth----

Luke 16

19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

 

[joebudda]

I agree completely that people should be able to live free as they like, provided that they're freedom doesn't hurt others, and they aren't letting others fall by the wayside.

I have no interest in simply forcing people to agree with me out of hand. Most people don't actually know about the consequences of their actions and consumtion. Once educated, if they choose to continue to act harmfully, the means to act in this manner should be removed.

We do care for each other, but the situation in the world at this time is not a massive exception to the rule, caring for each other consistently is.

I'm truly glad that you are charitable. Having no idea what you make and give, I can not say whether or not it is greater than what I will ever be able to give, but I can tell you that all wealth flows up, and simply giving doesn't eliminate the social obligation we have to make responsible choices. Charity doesn't buy you freedom.

Well I do do well for myself. I don't make what the top CEO's of these huge multi-corps make, but I do own a successful businesses. This allows me to support myself, my sister and niece and give between 100,000 to 200,000 a year to charities. And the tax burden forced onto me is outrageous. Over half of what I make every year is taken in taxes, which prevents me from funneling that into areas I believe it would do much more good.

I am sure we all know and can agree there is no institution worse with money the government is. It looses trillions and it deeply disturbs me that my money is going to fund this ineptitude and the killing of others through war.

Which is why I take this issue so personally. I should be free to make the world a better place the way I believe to be best, and not be force to pay for things I am morally opposed to. I am a slave to a system that mines me like a resource to accomplish goals I don't agree with. I should be free to support what I want and withdraw my support to that in which I am opposed.

 

[JoyJuice]

To be fair, with that logic we can also say that genocide has occurred during 'this time' and 'that time' which would also make genocide a "historical way of life".

I'm sorry, but taxation since the date of 1776 has been more the rule of the law then it hasn't in this land. But bad analogy noted.

 

[JoyJuice]

Actually, that's not entirely true. The Tax Policy Center ran the numbers, and came up with this interesting conclusion:

From here: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=37519

You know, I went to The Tax Policy Center and searched for that blurb,

"When compared with current law, people earning $20,000-$50,000 a year will see their effective tax rates -- the amount of money the taxpayer actually ends up paying the government -- increase on average under Obama’s plan, according to Tax Policy Center figures.

Most households making $30,000-$75,000 will not see a reduction in their taxes under Obama’s plan relative to current law, according to the Center. In fact, the only strata that will see a majority of its effective tax burden reduced under Obama are those making less than $30,000 per year and those making $75,000-$200,000 per year."

.....and got no hits.

Here, perhaps you can find it:

http://search.urban.org/texis/searc...=When+compared+with+current+law&submit=SEARCH

Frankly, I do no trust the Conservative News Service.

 

[JoyJuice]

Well, where in this verse did Jesus endorse redistribution of the wealth? There is a vast difference between paying taxes and redistributing the wealth. Oldbetan and myself are focusing on the latter, so why exactly are you giving us verses analyzing the former?

Jesus is making a statement in support of taxes, and in taxes you take from one and it's given to others. In taxes the wealth of one is redistributed to others for a common good.

What you and Oldbe are failing to realize is the fundamental use of taxation while being caught up in this silly idea of insisting that "six" should be called "half a dozen" while six is okay, but a half a dozen is bad.

 

[soblessed53]

You do realize that the first income tax, as it were, wasn't instituted until 1862, but was repealed in 1872, and that the national income tax didn't become permanent until 1913? I don't think it's any mystery why most Americans have a "knee jerk" reaction when it comes to hearing that their taxes are going to go up.

I'm sorry, but I'm from the camp that believes that a person is entitled to keep more of what they earn, instead of having it go to the government. They put the hours in at their job, they're entitled to their pay. I'm not saying that workers should keep all of it, as that's unreasonable. Roads need to be built etc. I'm just calling for better stewardship of the money that Americans send to DC.

and how like John McCain to 'forget' " that the progressive/graduated income tax was instituted by his 'idol' Teddy Roosevelt!

 

[Sketcher]

and how like John McCain to 'forget' " that the progressive/graduated income tax was instituted by his 'idol' Teddy Roosevelt!

I don't recall a single incident where he called for it to be repealed. He just wants to reform it so it is simpler, fairer, and flatter. But it would still be graduated, and therefore "progressive."

 

[Smidlee]

Speaking of redistribution of wealth----

Luke 16

19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

You do realize there were two rich men in these verses, right? One was unnamed and the other was Abraham. Abraham was rich and even had servants (some would see that as evil) yet he didn't let his riches become his god.

I have a very wealth person living across the road where I live. By looking at him you wouldn't think he was very wealthy. He goes and works all the time. (I know of another man who farms yet is also wealthy) I have a neighbor who's living on welfare and food stamps that I never see do anything. So here we have a rich man working and the "so called poor" doing nothing waiting on the government to keep them up. So the poor in a way is living more like a king than the rich.

 

[NotreDame]

Jesus is making a statement in support of taxes, and in taxes you take from one and it's given to others. In taxes the wealth of one is redistributed to others for a common good.

What you and Oldbe are failing to realize is the fundamental use of taxation while being caught up in this silly idea of insisting that "six" should be called "half a dozen" while six is okay, but a half a dozen is bad.

Two points:

1. Supporting taxes is not the same as supporting what is done with them. Hence, I can concede Jesus is supporting taxes but this concession does nothing to strengthen your point Jesus was advocating for redistribution of the wealth.

2. I do not believe the understanding Jesus is supporting taxes in those verses is a logical reading of the verses.

In other words, your feeble attempt to find a verse where Jesus advocates for governmental redistribution of the wealth is remains "feeble" at best.

 

[Sketcher]

Speaking of redistribution of wealth----

Luke 16

19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

That's what happens when you think the government is going to take care of the beggar at your door instead of you yourself. The rich man should have cleaned the guy up and offered him a job in his household. This is a call for "see a need, meet a need" rather than for government redistribution.

 

[PantsMcFist]

I am sure we all know and can agree there is no institution worse with money the government is. It looses trillions and it deeply disturbs me that my money is going to fund this ineptitude and the killing of others through war.

Which is why I take this issue so personally. I should be free to make the world a better place the way I believe to be best, and not be force to pay for things I am morally opposed to. I am a slave to a system that mines me like a resource to accomplish goals I don't agree with. I should be free to support what I want and withdraw my support to that in which I am opposed.

Sorry for replying after a weekend, I don't log on outside of work really. I absolutely agree with objecting to bureaucratic waste, but I think that is a result of the same sort of apathetic mindset that allows people to live extravagently without any sort of obligation to do something with wealth other than pamper themselves.

Your attitude is exemplary, but I think we can both agree that it is also the exception to the rule. If we removed any tax deductions & taxation from incomes, I think there would be a much different story than yours in how most wealthy people chose to use their wealth. It's those types of people that also render gov't the inefficient behemoth that it is now. My main focus is with those attitudes, not punishing people who wish to, and already do make a difference.

 

[DavidS]

Look....
If we ought to have a Utopia, rich people should be giving out $trillions of dollars in projects in Africa and poverty-stricken areas.
But no.
IT just points out to simple fact...we are all selfish and we want jobs before charity.

Selfishness is one of the results of the Fall and, as the Holy Spirit acting within the soul of Christians reverses the Fall, this should change as the Christian matures spiritually.