Socialism - An Evil Concept

[Nathan Poe]

I'm so very confused..

socialism is ebil because of communism and death camps, and genocide.

but you want the government to kill the poor, and bad parents as a Christian principle.

are you secretly a closet socialist or something?

I think you're confusing "socialist" with "sociopath."

 

[explodingboy]

I think you're confusing "socialist" with "sociopath."

There is that, but I didn't want to muddy the water with new terms. Plus I'm not sure the OP would see the difference.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't believe in using the death penalty.

Clirus won't take too kindly to that. She* believes that capital punishment is not only authorised by Scripture, but necessary to eliminate the 'bad apple' before it causes the whole barrel to become infected and rot (her own words). For her, the death penalty is simply a means of eliminating 'evil' people, and thereby sparing 'good' people from infection.

Problems with that attitude become apparent immediately.
First, Clirus assumes that human beings, whose judgment is often impaired by error or deceived by mere appearances, can accurately assess the totality of a person, examining his innermost character, to determine whether he is in fact good or evil. I propose that human beings have no means to make such measurements on the soul, and that therefore we cannot judge precisely whether a whole person is good or evil; we can at best speculate. And speculation is not a sound basis for executing anyone (at least not in any respectable legal system).
Second, Clirus' analogy of the rotting apple causing the whole barrel to degenerate is a bit strained. She has, in the past, remarked that she is frightened by the prospect of 'becoming a monster by being eaten by the monster.' Both remarks seem to suggest that the individual is powerless against moral 'infection' from an 'evil' person. That if there is one evil-doer then those in his proximity shall become infected also and become evil-doers' themselves, spreading evil like a disease throughout society much like a rotting apple spreads mould spores to healthy fruit. This assumes that individuals are passive, and that the presence of evil alone suffices to make people in its proximity evil. On the contrary, the subject has a choice. In the presence of evil it is not necessarily true that that a person, even a good person, will himself become evil. If he does then it is because he has chosen that path and not because he was somehow the passive victim of infection. Likewise with the monster metaphor Clirus uses: you can't become a monster by being eaten by a monster. You can only become a monster by choosing to imitate a monster. Perhaps then the reverse is also true: you can only become Christ-like (or fully Christian) by imitating Christ.

* Though we are not entirely certain of her sex, some of her past posts have implied a female identity.

 

[MacFall]

I'm beginning to suspect that Clirus may actually be a very brilliant and dedicated troll.

No, it deserves a capital T. Troll.

 

[Greeble]

I'm beginning to suspect that Clirus may actually be a very brilliant and dedicated troll.

No, it deserves a capital T. Troll.

Yeah, its too unreal.

 

[jameseb]

Government is not inherently good or evil, but the government will be controlled by people that are good or evil.

This much is true. We can certainly agree on this.

When the government is controlled by evil people, the government will be evil by advocating evil activities like inappropriate contentography, abortion and homosexuality.

If democrats are in control of the government, Atheism and Socialism will be advocated by the government.

If Republicans are in control of the government, Christianity and Capitalism will be advocated by the government.

Even with the Republicans in control of the government, I am concerned because Christians do not participate in becoming candidates for office.

The Atheists would like to see Romney as the Republican presidential candidate, but I would never vote for Romney until he renounced his actions in Mass. that produced homosexual marriage and a state universal health care system. Romney is what I consider to be a Liberal Christian.

Nothing belongs to Caesar, but I believe in paying taxes when the money is used to protect good people and punish evil people.

I think one thing important to remember here is that during the time of Christ the land was ruled by Rome - a government that we could agree was corrupt and certainly was not based on Christian principles. Despite years later when they attempted to stamp Christianity out and even fed Christians to the lions in the arena, Christianity thrived. Christ never advocated revolt against Roman rule either... indeed, as we discussed, even telling us that we should pay Caesar what is his, and not because we think it just or not.

I believe Christ would have us more concerned with the spiritial realm than the physical one... a belief I hold because of what I wrote above. This isn't to say we shouldn't vote according to our beliefs and convictions, but we should certainly be focused more on our spiritual well-being and that of others rather than the government of this earth.

 

[jameseb]

I'm beginning to suspect that Clirus may actually be a very brilliant and dedicated troll.

No, it deserves a capital T. Troll.

Yeah, its too unreal.

Does this really help? Despite all the names and baiting I've seen directed at Clirus, I've actually yet to see her/him react in kind.

While there are people here who obviously intented to pique others, I've seen nothing thus far from Clirus that suggests she/he is trying to do so - Clirus simply has beliefs and ideas that run opposite to some of ours, and instead of attacking Clirus for it, we should instead appeal to reasoned discussion.

 

[Greeble]

"Clirus simply has beliefs and ideas that run opposite to some of ours, and instead of attacking Clirus for it, we should instead appeal to reasoned discussion."

You had to go and be right. *sigh*

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

While there are people here who obviously intented to pique others, I've seen nothing thus far from Clirus that suggests she/he is trying to do so - Clirus simply has beliefs and ideas that run opposite to some of ours, and instead of attacking Clirus for it, we should instead appeal to reasoned discussion.

Go ahead and try if you want. Hope you've got a hefty supply of food and toilet paper, because you're gonna be here a looooooong time.

 

[jameseb]

"Clirus simply has beliefs and ideas that run opposite to some of ours, and instead of attacking Clirus for it, we should instead appeal to reasoned discussion."

You had to go and be right. *sigh*

If I am, it's certainly few and far between.

Go ahead and try if you want. Hope you've got a hefty supply of food and toilet paper, because you're gonna be here a looooooong time.

Yep, could take a long time... then again, might not change hers/his beliefs anyway. Certainly seems like 95% of us are bullish on our beliefs and opinions, but nothing constructive you can do about it but either keep engaging them in reasoned dialogue or just give up and move on with at least a respectful disagreement.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Does this really help? Despite all the names and baiting I've seen directed at Clirus, I've actually yet to see her/him react in kind.

While there are people here who obviously intented to pique others, I've seen nothing thus far from Clirus that suggests she/he is trying to do so - Clirus simply has beliefs and ideas that run opposite to some of ours, and instead of attacking Clirus for it, we should instead appeal to reasoned discussion.

From my experience, Clirus is immunised to reasoned discussion. She uses as her own loaded semantics (defining 'Atheist' as simply non-Christian) and obstinately refuses to acknowledge even the most basic of errors (confusing abiogenesis and evolution for the same thing). Rather than addressing the reasons standing against her opinions, she will dismiss them as disagreeable, and repeat her opinions incessantly as though blind repetition is a good enough substitute for sound argument. That is her modus operanti.

 

[jameseb]

From my experience, Clirus is immunised to reasoned discussion. She uses as her own loaded semantics (defining 'Atheist' as simply non-Christian) and obstinately refuses to acknowledge even the most basic of errors (confusing abiogenesis and evolution for the same thing). Rather than addressing the reasons standing against her opinions, she will dismiss them as disagreeable, and repeat her opinions incessantly as though blind repetition is a good enough substitute for sound argument. That is her modus operanti.

That may very well be true, but I think it is still important people not engage in name-calling or other such petty behavior.

I do know there's quite a few people here that I disagree with, people who've demonstrated over the years that their minds are closed and their opinions are never going to change - I just decided to stop replying to them. Best way of dealing with it if one grows weary of polite discourse.

 

[Greeble]

That may very well be true, but I think it is still important people not engage in name-calling or other such petty behavior.

I do know there's quite a few people here that I disagree with, people who've demonstrated over the years that their minds are closed and their opinions are never going to change - I just decided to stop replying to them. Best way of dealing with it if one grows weary of polite discourse.

First you were right an now I have to go round up all my wirty dirds and pack them away in a bag. Have you ever tried to round up all your wirty dirds? they don't cooperate.

 

[jameseb]

First you were right an now I have to go round up all my wirty dirds and pack them away in a bag. Have you ever tried to round up all your wirty dirds? they don't cooperate.

Zomgosh - my wirty dirds are probably part of CF lore. Thank goodness one can't do post searches anymore. But I'm trying every day to be better.

 

[clirus]

Clirus won't take too kindly to that. She* believes that capital punishment is not only authorised by Scripture, but necessary to eliminate the 'bad apple' before it causes the whole barrel to become infected and rot (her own words). For her, the death penalty is simply a means of eliminating 'evil' people, and thereby sparing 'good' people from infection.

Problems with that attitude become apparent immediately.
First, Clirus assumes that human beings, whose judgment is often impaired by error or deceived by mere appearances, can accurately assess the totality of a person, examining his innermost character, to determine whether he is in fact good or evil. I propose that human beings have no means to make such measurements on the soul, and that therefore we cannot judge precisely whether a whole person is good or evil; we can at best speculate. And speculation is not a sound basis for executing anyone (at least not in any respectable legal system).
Second, Clirus' analogy of the rotting apple causing the whole barrel to degenerate is a bit strained. She has, in the past, remarked that she is frightened by the prospect of 'becoming a monster by being eaten by the monster.' Both remarks seem to suggest that the individual is powerless against moral 'infection' from an 'evil' person. That if there is one evil-doer then those in his proximity shall become infected also and become evil-doers' themselves, spreading evil like a disease throughout society much like a rotting apple spreads mould spores to healthy fruit. This assumes that individuals are passive, and that the presence of evil alone suffices to make people in its proximity evil. On the contrary, the subject has a choice. In the presence of evil it is not necessarily true that that a person, even a good person, will himself become evil. If he does then it is because he has chosen that path and not because he was somehow the passive victim of infection. Likewise with the monster metaphor Clirus uses: you can't become a monster by being eaten by a monster. You can only become a monster by choosing to imitate a monster. Perhaps then the reverse is also true: you can only become Christ-like (or fully Christian) by imitating Christ.

* Though we are not entirely certain of her sex, some of her past posts have implied a female identity.

That is a pretty good summary, except the death penalty is an Old Testament concept associated with society. The New Testament deals with this concept of purity as a Christian removing sin from themselves, but the concept of society removing evil/sin still remains. And, yes, I believe a Christian needs to be very careful about who they associate with and who they listen to.

I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - rebuke it but tolerate it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.

The first two are from the New Testament of the Bible and represent the Law of Love. The third is from the Old Testament of the Bible and represents the Law of Purity/Self Defense. The New Testament deals more with personal responsibility and the Old Testament deals more with the preservation of society. The Old Testament and the New Testament together present God's Law, a means of survival for a person, a nation and a world.

Matthew 6:29 states, And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

II Corinthians 6:14 states, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with the unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

I do not believe your assumption that it is easy to resist evil is correct. Even after accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible, and receiving the Holy Spirit, Christians are tempted and many fall under the influence of evil.

That is why Christians must have on the full armour of the gospel at all times.

Ephesians 6:10-20 "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel. For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak."

 

[clirus]

For every rich person there are thousands, millions and even billions of people who die starving. The rich people consume each as much as a whole city or maybe a whole country in the Third World. Isn’t that robbing? Think about it.

[FONT=&quot]St. Basil the Great

[/FONT]

The purpose of the Book of Job was to show that poverty was not a proof of sin, yet you seem to be saying being rich is proof of sin.

The Bible says both the rich and poor are in danger of temptation.

Proverbs 30:8-9 states, "Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? Or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain."

 

[clirus]

Greeble quote

Uh, no, *your* style of "Christianity" teaches about Christ, and nothing else. Not reading, not fishing, not anything. And the man, who cannot fish, watches his children (whom you care nothing about) starve.

Response

A man that cannot fish has no place being a father.

I Timothy 5:8 states, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

Greeble quote

oh yes, because evil people punish the woman for being single by denying any assistance, thereby forcing all those children to live in poverty.

But what makes you think most people in poverty have illegitimate children? So many are married and have too many because their religion (Christianity btw) forbids the use of birth control. What about them?

Oh right, I forget, they are poor and therefore by your definition, not Christian. So it is ok to allow them and their children to live their entire lives in suffering.

Response

Both the man and the woman committed sin when they committed adultery. Birth control is one way, but restraint is another.

I believe the disease, death, destruction and poverty is the result of the sin and not because someone refuses to help.

 

[Greeble]

Greeble quote

Uh, no, *your* style of "Christianity" teaches about Christ, and nothing else. Not reading, not fishing, not anything. And the man, who cannot fish, watches his children (whom you care nothing about) starve.

Response

A man that cannot fish has no place being a father.

I Timothy 5:8 states, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

Greeble quote

oh yes, because evil people punish the woman for being single by denying any assistance, thereby forcing all those children to live in poverty.

But what makes you think most people in poverty have illegitimate children? So many are married and have too many because their religion (Christianity btw) forbids the use of birth control. What about them?

Oh right, I forget, they are poor and therefore by your definition, not Christian. So it is ok to allow them and their children to live their entire lives in suffering.

Response

Both the man and the woman committed sin when they committed adultery. Birth control is one way, but restraint is another.

I believe the disease, death, destruction and poverty is the result of the sin and not because someone refuses to help.

You say Job proves sin doesn't cause poverty, yet behold your own words.

Make up your mind.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I do not believe your assumption that it is easy to resist evil is correct.

But I don't make that assumption.

Even after accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible, and receiving the Holy Spirit, Christians are tempted and many fall under the influence of evil.

And if they 'fall under the influence of evil' then that is their choice; they were not somehow passively infected as the 'apple in the barrel' analogy implies.

The purpose of the Book of Job was to show that poverty was not a proof of sin, yet you seem to be saying being rich is proof of sin.

Watch this Clirus, I'm about to show you just how contradictory your claims are:

You said:

(A) The purpose of the Book of Job was to show that poverty was not a proof of sin, yet you seem to be saying being rich is proof of sin​

Followed closely by:

(B) I believe the disease, death, destruction and poverty is the result of the sin and not because someone refuses to help.​

If A, then not B. You, sir or madam, are contradicting yourself.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The purpose of the Book of Job was to show that poverty was not a proof of sin, yet you seem to be saying being rich is proof of sin.

The Bible says both the rich and poor are in danger of temptation.

Proverbs 30:8-9 states, "Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? Or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain."

Yes, but you're not in favor of executing the rich for being rich, just the poor for being poor.