Socialism - An Evil Concept

[jgarden]

..... Response

The top 1% may control more wealth than the bottom 90%, but you must first prove the 1% are violating Civil Law or God's Law in order to justify taking/stealing money from them. Maybe you are violating God's will that the 1% use their riches to assist the Church in spreading the good news of Jesus Christ.

In the case of poverty, I believe the poverty exists in the minority and thus the taking/stealing money is from the majority to the minority.

If taking/stealing money from the majority and giving to the minority (Socialism) did any real good I would be for it, but I really do not believe socialism works

Socialism is giving a man a fish, Christianity is teaching a man to fish.

"Clirus' " would have us believe that the reason 1% of the population in the US control more of the private wealth than the other 90% because somehow they are more "deserving" and/or that one individual like Bill Gates, works harder than the combined efforts of 40% of the nation households - approximately 120 million Americans.

Was it "an act of God" that the richest 1% of Americans were fortunate enough to almost double their share of the nation private wealth between 1976 and 1998 (22% to 38%) at the expense of the bottom 90%, or that by 1998 that 1% owned 47.7% of all US stock (top 10% control 71% of all private wealth and own over 86% of the value of all stocks and mutual funds)?

Can we attribute it to "God's Law" that between 1990 and 2005 these "chosen few" again acquired almost all the benefits of the economic booms, while the average US worker added a mere 4.3 % increase to their purchasing power over the same 15 years and tens of millions of Americans working at minimum wage actually experienced a 9.3% decline?

When a capitalitst economic system and "democratic" government that portray themselves as "a level playing field," fulfilling the "will ofr the people," yet defy all the odds by repeatedly rewarding the same small select group at the expense of the vast majority, then even "slow learners" eventually come to the realization that "anything too good to be true for one group usually is" and conclude that the cards have been always been "marked" and the deck "stacked!"

It is fascinating to see how "clirus" and her conservative "associates" have attempted to turn the tables and blame the repeatedly "victimized" bottom 90% of the population for attempting to steal from the wealthy - as if, throughout recorded history, those "chosen few" have ever required outside help to protect their self-interests from the "unwashed masses!"

"Clirus" may find that "the poor of this world," which she holds in such distain, are much more deserving of entering the Kingdom of Heaven than their wealthy counterparts which she holds in such high esteem - who, according to Christ, will be subject to the additional requirement of "pass(ing) through the eye of the needle" to receive Eternal Life.

 

[General Mung Beans]

Socialism - An Evil Concept

Socialism is one of the great evil concepts because it represents robbing from everyone (including the rich) and giving to the poor. I have never seen any valid justification of robbing from everyone (including the rich) to give to the poor.

Socialism has wide public appeal because there is a feeling that someone is going to get something for nothing, but wide public rejection with the reality that some will receive and everyone else has to pay.

Socialist/Democrats want to imply the only way a person can become rich is by abusing the poor. Socialist/Democrats also define everyone as rich that is not poor. The Bible says there is great danger with being either rich or poor.

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."

There certainly are those that became rich by taking advantage of the weaknesses of the poor by selling pornography, sex, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. to the poor, but I believe most people live comfortably by hard work, following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible and God's blessings.

There certainly are those that are poor because they have physical and mental limitations, but I believe most people that are poor, got to be poor because of their weakness for pornography, sex, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.

The concept of redistribution of wealth becomes just stealing unless there is a justification that everyone (including the rich) deserve to be robbed and the poor deserve to be given to.

Lots of people like the concept of Robin Hood who robbed from the evil rich and gave to the virtuous poor, but I worry that a lot was robbed and only a little ever got to the poor. I worry that the wealth redistribution (Socialism) of the Democrats really means robbing from the rich, stuffing their pockets, then if there is anything left, they give to the poor.

Giving to the poor is evil, if the money is used by the poor to continue to buy pornography, sex, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.

The purpose of repentance in the Bible is to cast off the old man (pornography, sex, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc.) and begin again (be reborn) with the old sins forgiven. If money is given to a person and they do not change their lifestyle, the money was wasted.

There are those that say they would rather see 100 evil poor people fed than to see one poor person starve to death, but feeding the 100 evil people leads to 200 evil people and sooner or later all die because there is no money to feed any, thus all starve to death.

The Bible says the wages of sin is death, and Socialism is not going to change that. The death may not be due to starvation, but it will come from AIDS, STDS, lung cancer, liver failure, etc. that are associated with an the unhealthy Atheistic Lifestyle.

The Bible advocates person charity. The Bible does not advocate Socialism.

The solution of the problem of both the rich, the poor an all those in between is not through Socialism, but rather by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

Socialism is feeding a person for a day, but Christianity is teaching a person how to fish.

Socialism does more harm than good, thus the people of America would be best served if the government would get out of all Socialistic (Entitlement) programs.

Republicans have yet to prove to me that they totally support Christian principles, but democrats have proven they do "not" support Christian Principles.

I'm not a socialist (I'm a Republican!) but this is plain ridiculous. There are a lot of rich people who are atheists or agnostics and there are a lot of poor people who are very Christian. Indeed poor people tend to be more religious. How in the world do you explain that?

 

[jgarden]

I'm not a socialist (I'm a Republican!) but this is plain ridiculous. There are a lot of rich people who are atheists or agnostics and there are a lot of poor people who are very Christian. Indeed poor people tend to be more religious. How in the world do you explain that?

If you actually expect a direct answer from "clirus," be prepared to wait "until hell freezes over!"

 

[rambot]

If you expect a direct answer from clirus, you have a long wait!

To be fair jgarden, you've been posting on this thread for a while now.
How?....or..... why?

 

[clirus]

"Clirus' " would have us believe that the reason 1% of the population in the US control more of the private wealth than the other 90% because somehow they are more "deserving" and/or that one individual like Bill Gates, works harder than the combined efforts of 40% of the nation households - approximately 120 million Americans.

Was it "an act of God" that the richest 1% of Americans were fortunate enough to almost double their share of the nation private wealth between 1976 and 1998 (22% to 38%) at the expense of the bottom 90%, or that by 1998 that 1% owned 47.7% of all US stock (top 10% control 71% of all private wealth and own over 86% of the value of all stocks and mutual funds)?

Can we attribute it to "God's Law" that between 1990 and 2005 these "chosen few" again acquired almost all the benefits of the economic booms, while the average US worker added a mere 4.3 % increase in their purchasing power over the same 15 years and tens of millions of Americans working at minimum wage actually experienced a 9.3% decline?

When a capitalitst economic system and "democratic" government that portray themselves as "a level playing field," fulfilling the "will ofr the people," yet defy all the odds by repeatedly rewarding the same small select group at the expense of the vast majority, even "slow learners" eventually come to the realization that "anything too good to be true for one group usually is" and conclude that the cards have been always been "marked" and the deck "stacked!"

It is fascinating to see how "clirus" and her conservative "associates" have attempted to turn the tables and blame the repeatedly "victimized" bottom 90% of the population for attempting to steal from the wealthy - as if, throughout recorded history, those "chosen few" have ever required outside help to protect their self-interests from the "unwashed masses!"

"Clirus" may find that "the poor of this world," which she holds in such distain, are much more deserving of entering the Kingdom of Heaven than their wealthy counterparts which she holds in such high esteem - who yet, according to Christ, are subject to the additional requirement of "pass(ing) through the eye of the needle" to receive Eternal Life.

Bill Gates did not work harder, he worked smarter. Bill Gates saw the Operating System was the central element that was required to make all computer software and hardware work together.

Gates first made a wordprocessor, a spreadsheet, a data base and information presentation software work together while others had independent software.

Next, Gates made the operating system able to identify all kinds of hardware and set the hardware up to work with the operating system and software.

Bill Gates got his riches by being smarter than all the rest.

Some rich people get rich by taking advantage of the poor by advocating, selling and distributing drugs, alcohol, pornography, etc to the poor, but I believe most people get rich by being smarter than other people.

It is hard to come up with a new idea or better idea, then struggle though the difficulty of making something a reality, when you are involved in white rum and coca leaves.

I do not hold the poor in the world in disdain, but I disagree with a lot of people on the best way to get the poor out of their poverty.

I do not believe Socialism gets people out of poverty.

I believe the best way to get people out of poverty is for them to accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

For those that reject Jesus, I have no idea of what to do. I do not believe Christians should either help them or harm them, and I definitely do not believe the government should offer Socialistic Programs that prevent the poor from making the tough decisions that would get them out of poverty.

Socialism is giving a man a fish, Christianity is teaching a man to fish.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe the best way to get people out of poverty is for them to accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

And then what? What happens after they have converted and the conditions perpetuating their poverty continue to persist? What then, Clirus?

For those that reject Jesus, I have no idea of what to do. I do not believe Christians should either help them or harm them

Actually, the Bible makes it quite plain. Recommended reading for you: the parable of the Good Samaritan.

and I definitely do not believe the government should offer Socialistic Programs that prevent the poor from making the tough decisions that would get them out of poverty.

And of what 'Socialistic' programs that help people who have been made poor due to severe misfortune at no fault of their own?

Socialism is giving a man a fish, Christianity is teaching a man to fish

Getting someone to convert and then leaving them be, allowing the conditions contributing to their poverty to persist, certainly does not amount to 'teaching a man to fish'.

 

[peadar1987]

Actually, the Bible makes it quite plain. Recommended reading for you: the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with Clirus' interpretation of this story. She thinks that the Good Samaritan story is saying if we see someone in trouble and we're not sure if they're a christian, it's better to help them, just on the off chance that they are.

 

[LightHorseman]

Perhaps you aren't familiar with Clirus' interpretation of this story. She thinks that the Good Samaritan story is saying if we see someone in trouble and we're not sure if they're a christian, it's better to help them, just on the off chance that they are.

Still not as good as his interpretation of "render unto Caesar" as being a directive NOT to pay taxes

 

[jgarden]

Bill Gates did not work harder, he worked smarter. Bill Gates saw the Operating System was the central element that was required to make all computer software and hardware work together.

Gates first made a wordprocessor, a spreadsheet, a data base and information presentation software work together while others had independent software.

Next, Gates made the operating system able to identify all kinds of hardware and set the hardware up to work with the operating system and software.

Bill Gates got his riches by being smarter than all the rest.

Some rich people get rich by taking advantage of the poor by advocating, selling and distributing drugs, alcohol, pornography, etc to the poor, but I believe most people get rich by being smarter than other people.

It is hard to come up with a new idea or better idea, then struggle though the difficulty of making something a reality, when you are involved in white rum and coca leaves.

I do not hold the poor in the world in disdain, but I disagree with a lot of people on the best way to get the poor out of their poverty.

I do not believe Socialism gets people out of poverty.

I believe the best way to get people out of poverty is for them to accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

For those that reject Jesus, I have no idea of what to do. I do not believe Christians should either help them or harm them, and I definitely do not believe the government should offer Socialistic Programs that prevent the poor from making the tough decisions that would get them out of poverty.

Socialism is giving a man a fish, Christianity is teaching a man to fish.

If God does sees fit to reward those who work smarter, why didn't Jesus choose to surround Himself with "intelligent disciples" - in fact, it was the Rich Young Ruler, not the fishermen, who rejected Him.

There is a reocuring theme throughout the Bible whereby God selects the most unlikely/unqualified of candidates, by worldly standards, to carry out His mission.

Noah - who endured ridicule because he built an ark on dry land
Joseph - a slave sent to Egypt
Moses - an Israelite baby who escaped death to become a prince of Egypt
Samuel - God chose to speak to a boy rather than the high priest Eli
Ruth - a Moabite widow to whom David and Jesus can trace their ancestry
David - a shepherd who killed Goliath and later became King
Ester - an Israelite girl in exile who would become a queen
Jonah - who deliberately tried to evade Gods request that he go to Ninevah
Mary - an obscure Israeli girl forced to deliver her baby in a stable
Paul - a young Pharisee dedicated to persecuting Christians.

 

[jgarden]

Apparently Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world, is an atheist and yet he is making a concerted effort to redistribute much of his wealth back into soceity.

Unlike "clirus" and many other religious conservatives in this forum, Gates has better "intuitive" understanding of basic Christianity than those who "wrap themselves in the Bible" and yet label attempts to improve the lives of the poor as "stealing!"

 

[jgarden]

Meet A Few Rich Atheists!

“Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your MISERIES THAT SHALL COME UPON YOU. Your riches are corrupted…” (James 5:1,2)

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers
as useful.“ — Edward Gibbon

Bill Gates

Microsoft Cofounder and CEO, was interviewed November 1995 on PBS by David Frost. Below is the transcript with minor edits...

Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?

Gates: I don't. I'm not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I'm a huge believer in. There's a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very, very positive impact.

Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a god, or do you know there is a god? And, you'd say you don't know?

Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.

Gates was profiled by Walter Isaacson in a January 13, 1996 TIME MAGAZINE cover story. Here are some excerpts compiled by the Drudge Report:

Isaacson: Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?

Gates: I don't have any evidence on that.

“Gates face suddenly becomes expressionless,” writes Isaacson, "his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at MICROSOFT that a meeting there can resemble a round table of ecstatic rabbis."

Gates: Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning ......

Other philanthropist atheists-agnostists that clirus can add to her list are

Warren Buffett - Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, who have each individually made the two largest charitable donations in American history and can rightly claim credit for spurring many other ultra-rich to do the same.

George Soros - as of 2003, PBS estimated that he had given away a total of $4 billion.
- the OSI says it has spent about $400 million annually in recent years.

Ted Turner - creator of CNN and TBS, is an atheist philanthropist who was named the 1990 Humanist of the Year
- Turner created the United Nations Foundation in 1998 with a commitment of up to $1 billion

Andrew Carnegie - regarded as the second richest man in history (John D. Rockefeller being first), Andrew Carnegie earned his vast wealth building the US steel industry in the 19th century
- founded the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Carnegie Mellon University and the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh.
- believed that religion caused more harm than good and devoted the latter part of his life to the betterment of the human condition

Robert W. Wilson - a retired hedge-fund manager and confirmed atheist who is giving over $22 million to the Archdiocese of New York to fund a scholarship program for needy inner-city students attending Roman Catholic schools.
- this donation is in addition to the almost $150 million that Wilson donated to charity in 2006, according to a survey by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, making him the 12th most generous philanthropist in the U.S

Richard Dawkins - in 2006, he started the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, which raises money to fund education and humanitarian efforts
- raised $500k for the Red Cross and Doctors without Borders for Haiti Relief
- received American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award in 1996.

Norman Ernest Borlaug - founder of the "green revolution," Borlaug won the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize, the 1977 U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom, 2002 Public Welfare Medal from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the 2002 Rotary International Award for World Understanding and Peace and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2006.
- credited with saving 1 billion lives
- "You can't build a peaceful world on empty stomachs and human misery."

http://www.dontfeedtheanimals.net/2010/03/good-without-god-secular.html

 

[clirus]

Still not as good as his interpretation of "render unto Caesar" as being a directive NOT to pay taxes

I never said that.

Can't you win a discussion without telling lies?

That may be your interpretation of what I said, but that is not what I said, just your opinion.

 

[LightHorseman]

I never said that.

Can't you win a discussion without telling lies?

That may be your interpretation of what I said, but that is not what I said, just your opinion.

Um... well how about you clarify then? Because when you said "Jesus was telling us not to give Caesar anything" iy sure as heck looked like thats what you meant.

 

[clirus]

Art Vandelay quote

Getting someone to convert and then leaving them be, allowing the conditions contributing to their poverty to persist, certainly does not amount to 'teaching a man to fish'.

Response

Why do you think God is powerless?

If a new convert just avoids the things that are evil, they have a clear head to figure out a new way of living. To me, that means "lifting the burden of sin".

God even gives the new convert, the Holy Spirit to help in making good decisions.

Each person has to define their own path, based on their own talents, but God provides everyone with a talent. Sin makes the talent useless.

I believe God is good for those accept Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and commit to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

 

[clirus]

Apparently Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world, is an atheist and yet he is making a concerted effort to redistribute much of his wealth back into soceity.

Unlike "clirus" and many other religious conservatives in this forum, Gates has better "intuitive" understanding of basic Christianity than those who "wrap themselves in the Bible" and yet label attempts to improve the lives of the poor as "stealing!"

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to prove.

Apparently Bill Gates (and other rich people) are Atheists.

That is consistent with the verse in the Bible,

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."

My point was that working smarter leads to being rich not just working hard. You seem to be trying to say that being an Atheist is a requirement for being rich.

That concept that being rich is proof of Atheism is just a bad as the concept that poverty is proof of Atheism, that was refuted in Job.

Is the giving (not redistributing) back much of a rich persons wealth back into society going to buy a ticket into heaven?

However, the personal charity of Bill Gates is better than the forced charity (stealing) of Socialism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That concept that being rich is proof of Atheism is just a bad as the concept that poverty is proof of Atheism, that was refuted in Job.

And yet it is you who claims that most poverty is the result of Atheism. If you recognise that this claim has been refuted - in Job - then why persist in making a refuted claim?

Why do you think God is powerless?

Strawman.

If a new convert just avoids the things that are evil, they have a clear head to figure out a new way of living. To me, that means "lifting the burden of sin".

You're not addressing the crux of the issue - you are avoiding it.

Suppose that a poor person converts to Christianity and obediently adheres to all the commandments/doctrines of the Bible, faithfully following a 'Christian Lifestyle', and yet the conditions of his material poverty persist unmitigated. Despite his sincere conversion, he still lacks access to the resources necessary for his subsistence and lacks the opportunity to enhance his life any further then its present impoverished state. Despite his conversion then, and whatever lifestyle changes follow with it, he is still poor then.

Your solution to poverty is unrealistic because it does not address this key issue. Poverty is not merely a 'lifestyle disorder', though for some people it might be the result of lifestyle choices. There are people in this world who are poor despite their humble Christian lifestyles. There are people in this world who will continue to be poor even after conversion. Your 'solution' to poverty fails these people because it conceptualizes only a causal link between lifestyle and poverty, whilst completely ignoring other equally significant factors in the equation, such as lack of access to resources and opportunities for self-enhancement.

 

[LightHorseman]

Ethiopia is one of the most Christian observant places on the planet.

[/thread]

 

[jgarden]

"I just discovered that "three of the four greatest American philanthropists have been atheists or agnostics" thanks to the New York Times. They are Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Andrew Carnegie. John D. Rockefeller is the fourth and he’s the exception."
(http://stormyscorner.com/2006/12/atheists-agnostics-charity.html)

"In a world in which private philanthropy trumps public programs -- the Red Cross' budget is $3.4 billion, a little more than one-tenth of The Gates Foundation's assets of $29.1 billion."
(http://thegreatrealization.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/worlds-largest-philanthropers-atheists/)

If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.
"Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary", Times Online, June 28, 2007.

"You can't build a peaceful world on empty stomachs and human misery."
(Norman Ernest Borlaug)

"The man who dies rich dies disgraced."
(Andrew Carnegie)

The world's second richest man (Warren Buffett)... will start giving away 85% of his wealth in July - most of it to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x82106)


How ironic that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, the 2 poster boys for capitalism in America, are both atheists - so much for the ".....Christianity is teaching a man to fish" analogy.

In addition they are also the 2 most generous philanthropists in the history of the nation.

In marked contrast to "clirus' " stated position on charity, Gates and Buffett have never limited their generosity just to those individuals who share their atheistic beliefs.

The same can be said for a host of other atheists who are philanthropists including George Soros, Ted Turner, Andrew Carnegie, Robert W. Wilson, Richard Dawkins and Norman Ernest Borlaug.

 

[oldbetang]

Apparently Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world, is an atheist and yet he is making a concerted effort to redistribute much of his wealth back into soceity.

Unlike "clirus" and many other religious conservatives in this forum, Gates has better "intuitive" understanding of basic Christianity than those who "wrap themselves in the Bible" and yet label attempts to improve the lives of the poor as "stealing!"

Bill Gates is not an atheist.

 

[oldbetang]

"I just discovered that "three of the four greatest American philanthropists have been atheists or agnostics" thanks to the New York Times.

You're misinformed. That what you get for reading the New York times.