Conflicting morals

[ThatRobGuy]

A very quick and simple question...

Is it possible to be a Fundamentalist Christian (believing that the bibe is 100% accurate and literal) and a Capitalist (or anti-Socialist) at the same time?

 

[Supernaut]

Yes absolutely. Why?

 

[Washington]

A very quick and simple question...

Is it possible to be a Fundamentalist Christian (believing that the bibe is 100% accurate and literal) and a Capitalist (or anti-Socialist) at the same time?

Ah, what is the moral conflict here?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes absolutely. Why?

I'll preface by stating that I'm not a Christian, but have read the entire bible a couple times so my non-Christian view of the text might differ from that of a Christian

Well, the system of communalism referenced in the book of Acts and the system described by biblical historians that early Christians used seems to conflict with the current feelings of anti-Socialism conveyed by a lot of the modern conservatives.

The early system was as follows: paying your taxes (the doctrine of giving to Rome what is Rome's)...followed by 10% to the Church, and roughly 10% of that remaining amount to the poor.

Somehow that's translated into today's neo-Conservative view of paying as little in taxes as possible if you're rich, and fighting the idea of giving aid to the poor.

I haven't found one place in the bible where is says to help the poor (as long as the poor person in question doesn't fall into your personal criteria as lazy or undeserving)

 

[yasic]

Well, the majority of fundamentalists in the US do indeed happen to be capitalists, so based on this alone I would say it is very much so possible to be both a fundamentalist and a capitalist.

 

[Hentenza]

I'll preface by stating that I'm not a Christian, but have read the entire bible a couple times so my non-Christian view of the text might differ from that of a Christian

Well, the system of communalism referenced in the book of Acts and the system described by biblical historians that early Christians used seems to conflict with the current feelings of anti-Socialism conveyed by a lot of the modern conservatives.

The early system was as follows: paying your taxes (the doctrine of giving to Rome what is Rome's)...followed by 10% to the Church, and roughly 10% of that remaining amount to the poor.

Somehow that's translated into today's neo-Conservative view of paying as little in taxes as possible if you're rich, and fighting the idea of giving aid to the poor.

I haven't found one place in the bible where is says to help the poor (as long as the poor person in question doesn't fall into your personal criteria as lazy or undeserving)

2 Cor 9
6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written:


“ He has dispersed abroad,
He has given to the poor;
His righteousness endures forever.”

10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. 12 For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, 13 while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men, 14 and by their prayer for you, who long for you because of the exceeding grace of God in you. 15 Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!


The bible has many a message regarding taking care of the poor. This is just one.

 

[mont974x4]

the reason you see a moral dilema is because we generally do not support givernment welfare. We are quite active helping the poor, we just abhor the idea that it's the givernments job. And seeing as how they do such a horrid job at it, I don't know why people think they can do better at more welfare programs (like health care).


The typical mistake that liberals make is thinking that being anti-givernment is the same as being anti-poor. The truth is a vastly different.



The Bible does call us to help those in need. However, it sets criteria, fro example what is truly a widow that we should help. It also says that a man who does not work does not eat and a man who does not provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever.

What it does not say, is that the Church is to adbicate its responsibility to the givernment.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The bible has many a message regarding taking care of the poor. This is just one.

That's exactly my point, many of the rich "conservatives" in Washington who claim to be Christians are the one's starting the Socialism scare everytime someone mentions giving tax money to the poor and providing poor people with free healthcare.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

the reason you see a moral dilema is because we generally do not support givernment welfare. We are quite active helping the poor, we just abhor the idea that it's the givernments job. And seeing as how they do such a horrid job at it, I don't know why people think they can do better at more welfare programs (like health care).

The typical mistake that liberals make is thinking that being anti-givernment is the same as being anti-poor. The truth is a vastly different.

The Bible does call us to help those in need. However, it sets criteria, fro example what is truly a widow that we should help. It also says that a man who does not work does not eat and a man who does not provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever.

What it does not say, is that the Church is to adbicate its responsibility to the givernment.

While I agree with your point (in theory), I have to mention that the 10% of us who are actually giving and trying help isn't enough to turn the country around. The harsh reality is this, if someone doesn't force the redistribution of some of the wealth that's out there, our country is going to turn into a lousy place. We'll see an increase in crime and lose our middle class. The argument that free market capitalism will fix itself is a ploy propegated by the ultra-rich for no other reason than them wanting to keep the money train rolling in. They know that if we ever adopted a system that made them pay their fair share, and eliminated all of the tax loopholes, they would only net 15mil per year instead of 20mil (which I still don't see the problem with, I could get by on that pretty easily)

We're dealing with an elite 3% of the population who's lining the governments pocket so that the lawmakers side with them, who feel that it's more important that they buy their 5th house and have a pile of money to pass to their next generation, rather than lending a hand to poor people.

It's sad, but very few rich people are charitable (unless they're trying to get a tax break), even though they're the ones who could help the most.

 

[allhart]

Intent is prier to content!

 

[Penumbra]

I'll preface by stating that I'm not a Christian, but have read the entire bible a couple times so my non-Christian view of the text might differ from that of a Christian

Well, the system of communalism referenced in the book of Acts and the system described by biblical historians that early Christians used seems to conflict with the current feelings of anti-Socialism conveyed by a lot of the modern conservatives.

The early system was as follows: paying your taxes (the doctrine of giving to Rome what is Rome's)...followed by 10% to the Church, and roughly 10% of that remaining amount to the poor.

Somehow that's translated into today's neo-Conservative view of paying as little in taxes as possible if you're rich, and fighting the idea of giving aid to the poor.

I haven't found one place in the bible where is says to help the poor (as long as the poor person in question doesn't fall into your personal criteria as lazy or undeserving)

According to some sources, Republicans on average give more to charity than Democrats.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

According to this source, Republicans give an average of $1600 a year while Democrats give an average of $1,227. (Though compared to the average income, that's really low in my opinion for both party averages. It's in the low single-digit percentage.)

Edit: I don't know if that counts giving to a church or not, though. I don't see that as much of a charity, personally, unless it's the Salvation Army or something.

-Lyn

 

[juvenissun]

I'll preface by stating that I'm not a Christian, but have read the entire bible a couple times so my non-Christian view of the text might differ from that of a Christian

Well, the system of communalism referenced in the book of Acts and the system described by biblical historians that early Christians used seems to conflict with the current feelings of anti-Socialism conveyed by a lot of the modern conservatives.

The early system was as follows: paying your taxes (the doctrine of giving to Rome what is Rome's)...followed by 10% to the Church, and roughly 10% of that remaining amount to the poor.

Somehow that's translated into today's neo-Conservative view of paying as little in taxes as possible if you're rich, and fighting the idea of giving aid to the poor.

I haven't found one place in the bible where is says to help the poor (as long as the poor person in question doesn't fall into your personal criteria as lazy or undeserving)

The Bible suggests that communism does not work.
This should be the end of your argument.

 

[mont974x4]

While I agree with your point (in theory), I have to mention that the 10% of us who are actually giving and trying help isn't enough to turn the country around. The harsh reality is this, if someone doesn't force the redistribution of some of the wealth that's out there, our country is going to turn into a lousy place. We'll see an increase in crime and lose our middle class. The argument that free market capitalism will fix itself is a ploy propegated by the ultra-rich for no other reason than them wanting to keep the money train rolling in. They know that if we ever adopted a system that made them pay their fair share, and eliminated all of the tax loopholes, they would only net 15mil per year instead of 20mil (which I still don't see the problem with, I could get by on that pretty easily)

We're dealing with an elite 3% of the population who's lining the governments pocket so that the lawmakers side with them, who feel that it's more important that they buy their 5th house and have a pile of money to pass to their next generation, rather than lending a hand to poor people.

It's sad, but very few rich people are charitable (unless they're trying to get a tax break), even though they're the ones who could help the most.

and how are you drawing your stats? Who verified them? How much money do you think the rich give to charity? What is the limit you're comfy with as a tax limit? How much do you think we should give to charity? Who gets to decide such things? what do you do when the workers revolt against the tyranny and failure of socialism?

 

[Daisy321]

Yes! No conflict.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

and how are you drawing your stats? Who verified them? How much money do you think the rich give to charity? What is the limit you're comfy with as a tax limit? How much do you think we should give to charity? Who gets to decide such things? what do you do when the workers revolt against the tyranny and failure of socialism?

I work in IT for marketing company in Akron Ohio that works with a lot of non-profit & charity companies along side our commercial clients so I see the how their programs operate, translate their business rules into code, and aid in the running & writing of their SRS reports that we send to them daily.

Average Response Rate: 9.6%...and that's not broken out by political party...that's across the board.

Is that good enough? Does first hand tangible knowledge count as proof?



I have a friend who works for a tax firm who told me that some people who make 20mil+ a year get away with only paying 3% in taxes...but somehow they're just so broke, they can't help anyone. I pay about 30% in taxes...then donate an addition grand to charity every year....so they have no excuse.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The Bible suggests that communism does not work.
This should be the end of your argument.

If you read my earlier post carefully...I said communalism, not communism. There's a big difference. Google each of them and see.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

I'm a Christian and a Socialist. It should be as simple as Christ telling us to help the poor, to welcome in the downtrodden. Just because the government is doing it doesn't mean it's any less help. We're still the ones providing. And I am no less blessed if I give slightly more.

I mean, things like welfare are things that we can't just provide. The government almost has to do it. It's too complicated a system for just a random group to start giving it out. And seeing as I am pro-life I believe EVERYONE should be able to have access to a doctor when they need them. Not at the last minute when they're on the verge of dying and trying to get themselves into an emergency room where their assistance CAN'T be paid for and so costs the hospital more money.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

According to some sources, Republicans on average give more to charity than Democrats.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

According to this source, Republicans give an average of $1600 a year while Democrats give an average of $1,227. (Though compared to the average income, that's really low in my opinion for both party averages. It's in the low single-digit percentage.)

Edit: I don't know if that counts giving to a church or not, though. I don't see that as much of a charity, personally, unless it's the Salvation Army or something.

-Lyn

Well that makes perfect sense really since most liberal Democrats are in the lower or lower middle class and don't make as much while more conservative Republicans are middle, upper middle, or even just upper class. It also doesn't measure giving in time and volunteer work which can be just as rewarding and helpful.

 

[Penumbra]

Well that makes perfect sense really since most liberal Democrats are in the lower or lower middle class and don't make as much while more conservative Republicans are middle, upper middle, or even just upper class. It also doesn't measure giving in time and volunteer work which can be just as rewarding and helpful.

Actually, the same article said that the average democrat makes 6% more, while giving less. And your point is valid that time can be as important as money.

I'm not vouching for any accuracy or inaccuracy of the article, though.

-Lyn

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Actually, the same article said that the average democrat makes 6% more, while giving less. And your point is valid that time can be as important as money.

I'm not vouching for any accuracy or inaccuracy of the article, though.

-Lyn

...okay now that part doesn't make sense.