Is Socialism Anti-Christian?

[Albion]

Not sure what you mean by admiration, he said "what is of Caesar, give to Caesar".

As I pointed out, Jesus' advice was to be obedient to the higher powers. It was absolutely not an endorsement of everything they do and certainly not of what Rome was then doing, which was not a lot different from what the most immoral and totalitarian governments of our own time have done.

What I have been reading on this thread, however, are posts approving of a certain form of government.

 

[solid_core]

As I pointed out, Jesus' advice was to be obedient to the higher powers. It was absolutely not an endorsement of everything they do and certainly not of what Rome was then doing, which was not a lot different from what the most immoral and totalitarian governments of our own time have done.

What I have been reading on this thread, however, are posts approving of a certain form of government.

Right now we are talking about taxes. Taxes are not stealing.

And socialism is about higher taxation, basically. Taxation for social safety, for health insurance etc. Its just named differently.

Socialism is not communism and I think communism is what you are against.

 

[Albion]

Right now we are talking about taxes. Taxes are not stealing.

We are not right not talking "about taxes." We have been talking about Socialism.

And socialism is about higher taxation, basically. Taxation for social safety, for health insurance etc. Its just named differently.

We've already covered this. Socialism is a form of government in which some people's property is taken, in order to give it to other people, and it is done by force. Christianity, however, which originally was asked about on this thread, condemns both theft and envy.

 

[solid_core]

We are not right not talking "about taxes." We have been talking about Socialism.
We've already covered this. Socialism is a form of government in which some people's property is taken, in order to give it to other people, and it is done by force. Christianity, however, which originally was asked about on this thread, condemns both theft and envy.

Norway, Denmark, Canada, Germany, Sweden etc are more socialist than the USA. Then you replied that its taking property by force, which is true, if you do not pay taxes, your property can be taken by police/judge force.

If you are talking about taking property by force in some other way than taxation, you are talking about dictature, revolution and similar, not about socialism as a system. Socialism can be democratic as it is in the EU, Canada and more.

So you should probably specify what you mean by "taking by force" and give some real life example.

 

[civilwarbuff]

if you do not pay taxes, your property can be taken by police/judge force.

Even if you do pay taxes they will seize your property.....
Venezuela seizes 60 firms

 

[solid_core]

Even if you do pay taxes they will seize your property.....
Venezuela seizes 60 firms

Venezuela is not a democratic country. Its problem are incompetent people in leadership and dictatorship.

Latin American countries are still on an edge of revolution and regime change.

Lets rather talk about EU or Canada and about the stable social democracy there. In the end you will see that the problem is not socialism, capitalism or any other political system, but non-systematic selfish or incompetent leadership against the will of majority.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Venezuela is not a democratic country. Its problem are incompetent people in leadership and dictatorship.

Latin American countries are still on an edge of revolution and regime change.

Lets rather talk about EU or Canada and about the stable social democracy there. In the end you will see that the problem is not socialism, capitalism or any other political system, but non-systematic selfish or incompetent leadership against the will of majority.

Hmmmm, and here I thought this was a discussion about socialism as an economic model.....silly me.

I'm talking about the economic system of left wing socialism specifically, I'm not talking about social liberalism (pro-choice, non-traditional marriage, etc.) which attaches itself to left wing socialism nowadays and clearly goes against the bible. But is the system where the government redistributes wealth, provides social assistance, and is highly involved in economic decisions and the social system unbiblical and anti-christian? If so can someone explain why? Is it bad because it's as if the government is replacing God and makes it easier for them to take our rights and freedoms away given they have so much control?

For myself, I'm more of a centrist if you had to place me somewhere. I'm very against abortion and the LGBT agenda, but on other matters as long as it doesn't get out of hand and out of control, I believe it's smart to have the government interfere in some cases or provide help to those who need it and can't provide for themselves. Some government spending is sometimes needed. I believe even though the government is corrupt, God can use the government in some situations for his purposes. I think in biblical times it was like that with the kingdoms and stuff.

 

[solid_core]

Hmmmm, and here I thought this was a discussion about socialism as an economic model.....silly me.

So why to mention venezuela? Venezuela is not economic model, its just a country doing its bad job in managing its economy.

Denmark is more socialist than the USA and life in Denmark is much more better, of higher quality and more stable. Its easy to pick three failed countries leaning to socialism like Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela and ignore much more good ones like Norway, Switzerland, the 28 countries of the EU, Canada.

Its a wrong argument to say "Venezuela is bad, therefore socialism is bad".

 

[civilwarbuff]

So why to mention venezuela? Venezuela is not economic model, its just a country doing its bad job in managing its economy.

Because of......socialism. Didn't think I had to explain that one.....

Denmark is more socialist than the USA and life in Denmark is much more better, of higher quality and more stable. Its easy to pick three failed countries leaning to socialism like Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela and ignore much more good ones like Norway, Switzerland, the 28 countries of the EU, Canada.

Here in the US we value the ability to make our own choices and not have the government make them for us. Obviously in Europe the cradle to grave welfare system is indoctrinated throughout life. But along with that comes governmental control which is antithetical to American culture....or used to be anyways.

 

[solid_core]

Here in the US we value the ability to make our own choices and not have the government make them for us. Obviously in Europe the cradle to grave welfare system is indoctrinated throughout life. But along with that comes governmental control which is antithetical to American culture....or used to be anyways.

I think various Americans have various opinions about it.

Also, paying higher taxes for having free access to standardized education and health care is also a choice Europeans made and are happy with it.

Its a manipulation to say that Europeans are indoctrinated. Why Americans are not indoctrinated to think that "everybody for himself" is always best while it obviously is not, in a long run? Look what internal problems you face, currently. The USA look more like a Venezuela than like a stable developed country, these days.

Every system is only as strong as its weakest part. If third of Americans cannot pay bills when they will not receive one monthly salary or when they get sick, in the 21st century when we are able to visit Mars, something is really bad in the system as such.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Why Americans are not indoctrinated to think that "everybody for himself" is always best while it obviously is not, in a long run?

Never said it was 'best'. People make bad decisions (so do governments) but at least it is OUR choice and not the governments.

Also, paying higher taxes for having free acces to standardized education and health care is also a choice Europeans made and are happy with it.

So you have an option to participate or not? No?....then it is not a choice. And if you don't go to college or want to use the national healthcare system?....oh well, you get to pay for them anyways. BTW, by your statement of 'higher taxes' you admit none of it is free....whether you use it or not.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm talking about the economic system of left wing socialism specifically, I'm not talking about social liberalism (pro-choice, non-traditional marriage, etc.) which attaches itself to left wing socialism nowadays and clearly goes against the bible. But is the system where the government redistributes wealth, provides social assistance, and is highly involved in economic decisions and the social system unbiblical and anti-christian? If so can someone explain why? Is it bad because it's as if the government is replacing God and makes it easier for them to take our rights and freedoms away given they have so much control?

For myself, I'm more of a centrist if you had to place me somewhere. I'm very against abortion and the LGBT agenda, but on other matters as long as it doesn't get out of hand and out of control, I believe it's smart to have the government interfere in some cases or provide help to those who need it and can't provide for themselves. Some government spending is sometimes needed. I believe even though the government is corrupt, God can use the government in some situations for his purposes. I think in biblical times it was like that with the kingdoms and stuff.

Human governments are anti-Christian by nature. God can and does use them as tools for His purposes, but their nature is to set themselves up as moral authorities rather than God.

The demands God places on them are simple, the list is short:

"...that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” 1 Timothy 2:2

If a nation is governed so that the Body of Christ can carry out its mission peacefully and quietly, that government is doing all God needs of it. Everything else gets us entangled in the affairs of the world.

 

[solid_core]

So you have an option to participate or not? No?....then it is not a choice.

Its not a perpetual choice of every individual, but its a democratic choice made by democtratic governments. If people want, they can vote for another program to change it. Thats the point of democracy.

Edit: I found out there is actually an option to "opt out" from the state system, but rarely used.

And if you don't go to college or want to use the national healthcare system?

Why would you exclude yourself from healthcare system? There is no rationality in it because you do not know what can happen to you. Tomorrow a car can hit you badly or you can get complicated COVID. And you do not want to be in a debt for all your life because of it.

The point of social democracy is that you work as a group. You do not go to college? Fine. Others will, maybe your children or your niece or somebody totally foreign to you. And he will make higher income because of it and his higher income will give you for example better health care or better public transport or higher pension or better roads. Or he can become a better medical doctor because of it and will give you better treatment when you will need it.

Thats the point of team work.

....oh well, you get to pay for them anyways. BTW, by your statement of 'higher taxes' you admit none of it is free....whether you use it or not.

Its not free in the meaning you will not pay a penny. By the "free access" I meant you pay your monthly standardized social/health insurance (well, technically, most of it is payed by the employer) and you can study whatever you want, get treatments for example for cancer that cost millions without any other pay etc.

 

[Speedwell]

Socialism's most fundamental point is the redistribution of income by government force.

That's what we have now. That's what we've always had. If that's what socialism is then all governments are socialist.


BTW, socialism's most fundamental point is really about who owns the productive capital of the country.

 

[Albion]

Norway, Denmark, Canada, Germany, Sweden etc are more socialist than the USA.

"More socialistic," you mean. Yes, many countries have seen their governments, led by whatever political party, adopt some policies that might be expected under a truly socialist regime. But those countries, usually described as having a mixed economy, are not examples of a socialist society.

Meanwhile, I notice that you have carefully avoided any reference at all in your posts to countries that everybody knows are actual socialist nations. This says a lot.

 

[solid_core]

Meanwhile, I notice that you have carefully avoided any reference at all in your posts to countries that everybody knows are actual socialist nations. This says a lot.

There are poor socialist countries, there are poor capitalist countries. As you do not refer to Denmark, I do not refer to Cuba.

Having more socialistic politics in economy does not make people more poor, the opposite is true. What makes nation poor are wars, economic isolation, low education, bad culture, bad neighbouring countries, corrupted leadership, bad history, bad management of natural resources and many other complex issues.

Developed democratic nations with more socialistic economies perform better for people than the USA and people are happier there, because they have less existential worries. I am pretty sure that most Norwegians, Danish, Austrians, Swiss or Germans or Canadians have higher savings than most Americans. And, as a bonus, standardized education and healthcare.

 

[TheNorwegian]

This discussion seems to miss out on a very important fact. I can speak about Norway. The wealth of Norway does not come form high taxation on its citizens. True, we do pay taxes on our income, but not much more than an average US citizen.

Norway's wealth comes to a large degree from its natural resources. Oil and gas is an obvious thing, but also hydroelectric power, metals, forests and sea food. In Norway, such resources are seen as belonging to the people - not to share-holders. No private person ever owned Norwegian oil before we began extract it. So, how is this stealing from someone?

 

[Albion]

In Norway, such resources are seen as belonging to the people - not to share-holders. No private person ever owned Norwegian oil before we began extract it. So, how is this stealing from someone?

I wouldn't say that it is. On the other hand, I don't believe that Norway is a Socialist country, either.

Most of the people who, on discussion boards, are sympathetic to Socialism, refer instantly to one of the Scandinavian countries when the subject comes up because they don't want to use Cuba or Venezuela as examples of that form of government which they are advocating.

They are well aware that if were they to use a really good example their argument would be lost.

 

[solid_core]

I wouldn't say that it is. On the other hand, I don't believe that Norway is a Socialist country, either.

Most of the people who, on discussion boards, are sympathetic to Socialism, refer instantly to one of the Scandinavian countries when the subject comes up because they don't want to use Cuba or Venezuela as examples of that form of government which they are advocating.

They are well aware that if were they to use a really good example their argument would be lost.

Why should they refer to Cuba, which is a dictatorship and isolated by the US embargo for decades?
Why should they refer to Venezuela, which is a dictatorship and a Latin American country?

You also do not refer to capitalism as seen in Somalia.

We are all free to choose European/developed society as our example of how it should look like. Nobody is forced to pick up some third world countries as an example.

 

[Albion]

Why should they refer to Cuba, which is a dictatorship

It's a Socialist dictatorship. Get it??