Is Christianity a Socialistic structure?

[Palmfever]

To be clear, I am not promoting socialism either. It seems obvious to me that some view socialism as "bad" due to the nature of socialist regimes with which they are familiar. I think neither capitalism or socialism are inherently good or bad as economic systems, although I prefer one over the over. Both can be bad based upon the way it is implemented in a society. And that's where negative bias enters the picture.

Right, The view many have of Socialism is colored by what it almost invariably decays into. Dictitorial government. This is the impractical aspect of Marxism. It does not factor in basic human characteristics. It must assume all, or the vast majority of the participants to be of an altruistic nature. Like many things, they sound good or look good on paper, but are not practical or easily implemented.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Fits the definition of socialism pretty well. What would you label it?

What does?

Based on the definition of socialism given on this forum, homeowner associations (HOAs) are socialistc.

 

[Sketcher]

Well...according to the story of Ananias and Sapphira there were pretty dire consequences for pretending to give more then you actually gave. So failing to give anything at all might be a reason to expel you from the Church. And then there's the fact that Jesus Himself seemed to take a pretty dim view of people who didn't share. Like, get sent to Hell and burn forever, dim.


That's the ideal anyway. But those stories in the Scriptures do seem to also carry the message: "Voluntary is good, but there is indeed a very large stick for those who fail to do it voluntarily."

With Ananias and Sapphira, and with people being sent to Hell, the church didn't do any of that. God is responsible for all of that. If God did not intend for the church itself to violently enforce his commands (evidenced by diviners being preached to and exorcised in Acts instead of killed by Christian death squads, and the condemnation of false teachers by Peter, Paul, and John without instructions to take them out) then the church still relied on voluntary giving. The church did not wield a stick, but left it to God. Any church can preach fire and brimstone if you don't give (which is outside of what the NT calls for, IMO), but without human enforcers to collect the money from those withholding it, that church still relies on voluntary cooperation to get the money. They preach a message and/or perform services that convince those that hear and see it that it is worthy of receiving their money, and they give in response. If the people are unconvinced, they won't give.

heh, heh good one dude...oh wait...you're serious?
tulc(is kind of hoping that was just a humorous tension breaker)

Completely serious. A truly free market is built upon the principle that outside of the threat of force, two people will not engage in a deal unless they both will benefit. So they have to convince each other. The way the church does this is by preaching messages and performing services that benefit people, and those who hear the message and see the service believe that it is good to give them a portion of their money. In the Christian context, they believe they will get a Heavenly reward for doing so. It's a bit less straightforward than a shopkeeper telling someone shopping for chairs, "I have a chair, and you have money. Give me the money on the price tag, and I'll give you the chair." But it follows the same principle overall.

 

[tulc]

With Ananias and Sapphira, and with people being sent to Hell, the church didn't do any of that. God is responsible for all of that. If God did not intend for the church itself to violently enforce his commands (evidenced by diviners being preached to and exorcised in Acts instead of killed by Christian death squads, and the condemnation of false teachers by Peter, Paul, and John without instructions to take them out) then the church still relied on voluntary giving. The church did not wield a stick, but left it to God. Any church can preach fire and brimstone if you don't give (which is outside of what the NT calls for, IMO), but without human enforcers to collect the money from those withholding it, that church still relies on voluntary cooperation to get the money. They preach a message and/or perform services that convince those that hear and see it that it is worthy of receiving their money, and they give in response. If the people are unconvinced, they won't give.

Don't take this wrong, but about the bolded portion? God IS the stick they used. God, and His Word have always been the stick the Church uses.
tulc(suspects Sketcher would be even more appalled if he studied what form of government the Lord set up when He set up a government here on Earth)

 

[Sketcher]

Don't take this wrong, but about the bolded portion? God IS the stick they used. God, and His Word have always been the stick the Church uses.
tulc(suspects Sketcher would be even more appalled if he studied what form of government the Lord set up when He set up a government here on Earth)

God isn't our stick. He is not a magic force that we wield to do our will. Rather, God is the Person in charge, the King, and we are his human tools to spread his Gospel. He does on his own what he wills to do that is beyond what we can do and what he told us to do.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Right, The view many have of Socialism is colored by what it almost invariably decays into. Dictitorial government. This is the impractical aspect of Marxism. It does not factor in basic human characteristics. It must assume all, or the vast majority of the participants to be of an altruistic nature. Like many things, they sound good or look good on paper, but are not practical or easily implemented.

It is not enough to simply assume everyone has an altruistic nature, one must assume that everyone has no self centered bone in their body or that no one would ever allow others to do more than they themselves are willing to do and one must also assume that everyone would agree on what is beneficial.To assume all that, one must ignore the whole of human history, one's own experience in life and one's own life story to date.

 

[ralliann]

Christianity is liberalism. What the liberals do is what Jesus would do.

I don't think so. Much modern liberalism disables people from taking care of themselves or others. They decide where money goes and to whom. Tax breaks etc, could be used to allow Children to care for their parents, children, community. But liberals want the money to set up their own choices.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I don't think so. Much modern liberalism disables people from taking care of themselves or others. They decide where money goes and to whom. Tax breaks etc, could be used to allow children to care for their parents, children, community. But liberals want the money to set up their own choices.

Tax breaks are totally unnecessasry for rich people who can afford to pay taxes. The only reason anybody wants tax breaks is greed: they want to keep as much money as possible to spend it on worldly desires. I know nobody wants to get tax breaks just to donate the money they save that way to donate it to church and/or charitable organizations. They want it for themselves. The only way to make sure they spend more money on helping the poor, sick, and disabled is increase their taxes.

 

[Palmfever]

Communes are not required to function the way Jonestown functioned. Jones actually was a socialist attempting to set up a socialist society.

Jim Jones was a nut job. Completely gone over to the dark side.

 

[Palmfever]

Every part of a body has a role to fill. When something in a body absorbs resources but does no work for the body, that's called a tumor.

The work of each member of the Body is to support the Body in its performance of the mission of Christ.

But...if that member is working for the body, then the body has an obligation to provide it the resources that it needs.

Tumor is funny. Yes we give preference to our brothers and sisters. Romans, 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. 10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honor preferring one another; 11 not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; 12 rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer; 13 distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.
And those that are without may have the potential to become brothers and sisters of the Son, as did we.

 

[ralliann]

Tax breaks are totally unnecessasry for rich people who can afford to pay taxes. The only reason anybody wants tax breaks is greed: they want to keep as much money as possible to spend it on worldly desires. I know nobody wants to get tax breaks just to donate the money they save that way to donate it to church and/or charitable organizations. They want it for themselves. The only way to make sure they spend more money on helping the poor, sick, and disabled is increase their taxes.

Hey I know I would love to have tax breaks to retire. I would love for my kids to have tax breaks to help me out. That's what I am talking about. If I sold my home in my old age, it would be great to not have to pay taxes on it. Or my kids to be able to use a tax break to help me out. You know the bibluical commands begin with a mans own household. This is the kind of things liberals hinder and control.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I explained most people just want tax breaks for their own purposes, not to help others in need. How can Republican politicans make sure every American has good health care if all of the people who have lots of money are holding onto it? Without taxes on the rich, poor people will get almost nothing.

Bottom line: Poor people get poorer BECAUSE rich people get richer. That is totally against what Jesus told us to do. So Democrats do what Jesus would do.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Jim Jones was a nut job. Completely gone over to the dark side.

I agree. Why else would he want to form a socialist society?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Tax breaks are totally unnecessasry for rich people who can afford to pay taxes. The only reason anybody wants tax breaks is greed: they want to keep as much money as possible to spend it on worldly desires. I know nobody wants to get tax breaks just to donate the money they save that way to donate it to church and/or charitable organizations. They want it for themselves. The only way to make sure they spend more money on helping the poor, sick, and disabled is increase their taxes.

Why should I think it is my prerogative to make sure anyone other than myself spends more money on the poor, the sick and the disabled? Does taxing anyone actually make sure more money is spent on the poor , the sick and the disabled? How much tax money goes to the poor, the sick and the disabled and how much goes to wealthy bureaucrats under the guise of going to the poor, the sick and the disabled?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I explained most people just want tax breaks for their own purposes, not to help others in need. How can Republican politicans make sure every American has good health care if all of the people who have lots of money are holding onto it? Without taxes on the rich, poor people will get almost nothing.

Bottom line: Poor people get poorer BECAUSE rich people get richer. That is totally against what Jesus told us to do. So Democrats do what Jesus would do.

Jesus did not make sure anyone had good health care. He did not appropriate the money of the rich to give to the poor. He did not do anything that the leading Democrats say they would like to do. Most of all He did not use force to get His way. If people decided not to do what He asked of them, He did not use the force of His Divine power to make them do it. So, no, in those regards both Democrats and Republicans and any other political leaders of any other parties one can name do exactly what Jesus could have done but refused to do.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Grasping, Democrats spendc more tax money on helping the people who need it than Republicans, whose health care plans ALWAYS include cutting Medicare and Medicaid benefits. If Republicans increased taxes, they would give all of the money to businessesa n d foreign aid instead of the people who need it most.

 

[Palmfever]

I agree. Why else would he want to form a socialist society?

"Life is but a vapor". Good scripture.
God Bless

 

[Radagast]

I explained most people just want tax breaks for their own purposes, not to help others in need. How can Republican politicans make sure every American has good health care if all of the people who have lots of money are holding onto it?

So you think you're somehow entitled to the money rich people have? That's just wrong (even if there's a moral obligation on the rich to share their wealth).

There are reasons why poor people are poor, and any responsible government must deal with those reasons, but (except for a few countries) "rich people stole all my money" is not the reason.

 

[Radagast]

Does taxing anyone actually make sure more money is spent on the poor , the sick and the disabled? How much tax money goes to the poor, the sick and the disabled and how much goes to wealthy bureaucrats under the guise of going to the poor, the sick and the disabled?

The chart shows the official numbers. But you're right: that includes money going into the pockets of bureaucrats and consultants. It also doesn't allow for the problem that poorly targeted aid creates poverty traps that keep people poor. The best way to keep people out of poverty is generally to give them a decent education and a decent job.

 

[RDKirk]

The best way to keep people out of poverty is generally to give them a decent education and a decent job.

Did you say "give" them a decent education?

How about if the government gives them a shoddy primary education, then colludes with banks to entice them into enormous debt for a mediocre secondary education?

There are even two US states that have made it legally mandatory for students to apply for government college loans, whether the students are prepared (or willing) to go to college or not.