Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not sure what you mean by a 'stable' society but I am all for changing societies that have institutionalized injustice and where government has expanded beyond God's purposes for it.
I am wedded to the liberty that God would have men enjoy and there is NOTHING in capitalism that fundamentally leads to avarice or sin. I think you are so wedded to the notion that capitalism is based on greed that no amount of discussion will dissuade you. If anything, the 'problem' with capitalism is that it is such a powerful engine for the creation of wealth that men not fortified by God's Holy Spirit and word may be at a loss at what to do with such wealth and that they will use it for un-Godly purposes such as catering to the lusts of the flesh. The problem you decry (material benefits which came at social and spiritual costs) is not with capitalism but with man's separation from God and certainly in the United States, our society started coming undone when the Supreme Court decided to ban the teaching of God's word and wisdom in public schools although God favors such teaching and our Constitution protects it.
I am not sure there is much morality found in either one.
Capitalism is profit motive. Profit motive is:
* avarice (by wanting "more", rather than "enough" and being custodian of what already is), and
* socially destabilising (because its nature is never satisfied, but instead promotes everyone to reach for more)
Socialism recognises the error of capitalism, avarice, and replaces it with meeting need. The problem with socialism is that it does this by a mechanistic centralisation that denies the personal and the family.
The alternative that we need takes the best from capitalism (the person and the family) and the best from socialism (make for need not profit). The closest system to that is Distributism,
and the fact that you quote Chesterton but know nothing of Distributism is quite bizarre.
You're using a straw man argument Leap. Profit does not equate to avarice (your own bizarre definition not withstanding) and there are societies that should be destabilized as they have institutionalized injustice and the oppression of the people. I'm not sure what you think is 'enough' or what you propose to do if other people have in your estimation more than 'enough' ... do you plead with them to meet only their 'needs' rather than all their 'wants' or do you take stronger action and confiscate their excess for redistribution?
How altruistic of socialismActually, the truth is socialism is a system of institutionalized theft and of oppression where some men place duties and financial obligations on other men without their consent. Leap, what you do with the wealth that God blesses you with is up to you but NO MAN has the RIGHT to the wealth or labor of their fellow man (and again, the charity that Jesus preached is a different issue from state redistribution of wealth). Socialism is a system of wealth redistribution that is abhorrent to God as it embraces the false balance.
And if other men disagree with you what then, do you COMPEL them to do things your way?
It's not so bizarre. The quote I use from Chesterton is quite accurate (and I came across it in an e-mail from a liberty based web site), my use of it does not require the I research him to discover the particulars of his beliefs.
Profit motive is avarice, by definition, because it wants "more" regardless of what is currently held.
It doesn't ... carnality encourages avarice; one can be a man of God and a capitalist and will use their profit as God directs. Before we can do big things like build hospitals, dams or bridges the wealth for these things must first exist ... capitalism CREATES wealth!Capitalism is wrong to encourage avarice
A point we agree on.Socialism is wrong to encourage theft.
False. Socialism is sinful (as a government institution, the socialism of like minded people voluntarily pooling their money together for an agreed purpose is fine) but capitalism is simply people being free to pursue their dreams without undue interference from others.BOTH are sinful.
Please explain your point here. Forcibly taking money from someone who is not indebted to you is THEFT, taking that money by government proxy does not change the nature of the act.Not all requirements on the wealth that we create are theft though.
You seem to operate under the theory that 'order' should not be changed since it 'destabilizes' society but what if the existing order is unjust, cruel or wicked? It would be our moral duty to change that society, NOT to ensure its continued existence.If need be, yes. Order is necessary for society, and if people put profit over need then order is destroyed. That is why we have a criminal justice system and traffic laws.
People quote the Bible all the time to undermine the will of God (do not judge, caring for the poor justifies theft by government proxy, render unto Caesar what is Caesars, husbands being tyrants to their wives ... they know the bit about wives submit yourselves to your own husbands but they tend to forget the duty of the husband to the wife and so forth).Quoting a man you know little about is a little superficial.
Apparently so in your world, not in mine. If I have a peach tree it may provide for my peach needs. However, if I plant 50 more peach trees I will have far more than I need and I can sell the excess to those who don't have peach trees but desire peaches. Pretending that benefit and profit are different things is silly.
It doesn't ... carnality encourages avarice; one can be a man of God and a capitalist and will use their profit as God directs. Before we can do big things like build hospitals, dams or bridges the wealth for these things must first exist ... capitalism CREATES wealth!
Please explain your point here. Forcibly taking money from someone who is not indebted to you is THEFT, taking that money by government proxy does not change the nature of the act.
You seem to operate under the theory that 'order' should not be changed since it 'destabilizes' society but what if the existing order is unjust, cruel or wicked? It would be our moral duty to change that society, NOT to ensure its continued existence.
Unfortunately society sometimes embraces some foolish rules (yet you embrace preserving the societal existing order) so in America we see laws that prohibit for example Christian inn owners from 'discriminating' against patrons so if a gay couple shows up on their 'honeymoon' or two randy teens show up on prom night so they can fornicate their little brains out, the Christian owners cannot refuse them a room (thus facilitating sin that God hates).
Which do you think is better? Which is moral? Do you believe that Christ supports one or the other?
I am a Christian Socialist, so I believe in socialism. I see capitalism as cruel and unjust. I also believe that the Bible supports socialism.
Then you need to go away and read up on the profit motive and its relation to capitalism.
Yes, yes, I know....
Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good" Speech - YouTube
Greed, avarice, is the value that built the Tower of Babel. It takes a position of "user" rather than "custodian" of this world, as if it (and we) can be saved by our efforts.Sorry, no, capitalism is avaricious by nature. Its desire is for "more"; not for "enough" and not for "what has been entrusted to us".
A society requires dutiful behaviour.
Part of that duty can be to supply resources to support that society
There is nothing of "theft" about that requirement anymore than a society requiring a certain behaviour of you is criminal.
The difference here is that capitalism (and, I suspect, you yourself) is individualistic. Putting the individual before the collective (which no does not mean "communism", despite decades of 2nd rate education and media churning out the idea that they are synonymous).
Thus capitalists rally against taxation as somehow inherently theft, when it is not.
Organic growth happens slowly. Demolition and mutation happen quickly. The lesson is quite obvious for us.Capitalism wants as much "growth" as quickly as possible. Its very point is "growth", change. That is why is has destroyed so many communities.
A society is best when it is stable. Where its nature is inherited rather than constantly changed. The market is no respecter of conservative values. It constantly destroys them because its nature is to progress rather than to conserve.
Embracing laws that have no roots is foolish. It is not tradition that leads to a sanctioning of homosexuality and promiscuity, it is an attack on tradition that does so.
Creating wealth is NOT greed.
'Duty' as defined by whom? YOU? A Hitler, Stalin or Vlad Tepes? Or perhaps duty as defined by God?
Your claim here seems to conflict with God telling us to use fair balances, to not covet or steal, that he who does not work, neither shall he eat. Actually, our 'duty' to society is to work to sustain our own lives, to not initiate the use of force or fraud against our fellow man ... our duty does not include doing for others what they refuse to do for themselves.
You keep ignoring that many societies are wicked, do more harm to the greater bulk of men than good, where oppression and torment of the individual is widespread ... are you seriously suggesting that such societies should be preserved? Such societies are fundamentally unstable because there will ALWAYS be a conflict between those men who seek to enslave their fellow man and those men who would rather live free than be a slave.
Seeking "more" is.
Defined by tradition. By the previous generations who are as much the owner of something as we are today and our grandchildren will be in the furture.
Are the widow and orphan expected to work for their food? Is the babe in arms or the sick or disabled expected to work for their food? In a large society, that needs full time courts, are we to expect the judges to work without pay when they are too busy to tend their fields and flocks? Please spare me the Randian individualist bile that would let the weak suffer and the strong rise on their backs.
I am ignoring no such thing. ALL societies have their problems, but a society that is unstable is itself a problem because it threatens its own existence. A stable society is built upon the principle of inherited custodianship, not procured acquisition. The latter calls men to leave where they are and strive for something different, inherently threatening the stability of society.
Not according to God who promises to prosper us, who gives us the ability to produce wealth. Just what do you think the man of God who creates wealth far above what he consumes is going to do with the excess? He is going to use it to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and so forth. He won't be able to do that with folks like you forbidding him from creating wealth with God's blessings.
I'm not referring to Ayn Rand, I'm referring to the word of God. Rand denied God and although she was quite accurate about the dangers of statism and the need for people to be free, she was dead wrong (irrationally wrong to boot) that man could exist without God the creator and that we could ignore Him and prosper.
Leap, you really need to come to grips with the reality that God does not give government the power you want to give it. The vast majority of people are not widows or orphans but able bodied enough to sustain themselves by the work that God calls for them to do. A man who does not take care of his family (wife, children, parents) is called worse than an infidel by God. We are called to be charitable and I am very curious where you think the extra wealth to care for an ever growing population is going to come from if we do not create wealth but merely deal with inherited wealth. It should be OBVIOUS that finite wealth that might care for 300 million adequately is completely inadequate to care for 3 billion people let alone the over 6 billion people the world has now.
How many human societies today are fully committed to God? The answer is NONE! How do you expect a society to be stable when it is in rebellion against God? God does not call for us to preserve wicked societies ... instead He says this: "If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land" ... this is a FAR CRY from what you are championing. We are to be a light to a world in darkness, we are not to embrace that darkness.
We prosper as God chooses, not as we desire.
Rand spouted nonsense that capitalism and libertarians copy.
God requires that we look after the widow and the orphan (and the sick and disabled), but your blanket application of "if you dont work, you dont eat" ignores that.
God gives men the power and govts are made up of men. I agree that charity is better than taxation, but I also see the majority of people who would give nothing if they could get away with it; hence taxation is needed.
A capitalist society is in rebellion against God by being rooted in avarice and the same belief in their own power as the builders of babel had.
The question to capitalism is; how much is enough? The answer it gives is that no amount is ever enough, because you could always do more with more power (and power is what money is about at core, really). It is inherently acquisitive, and stands opposed to the role of custodian that God gives us. A role that recognises our limits; we are not the saviours of this world. We are called to give of what we have, not hubristically seek as much as possible to have and (allegedly) give of (as if somehow we are its saviours). The point is not what you achieve, but what you do with what you have. The point is not ends, as when you focus on that all manner of means become acceptable, but on the means itself. Any more than that and you make yourself saviour of this world...and that is blasphemy.
Capitalism focuses on the ends (as does socialism) and in doing so claims legitimacy for all manner of foul means. Custodianship focuses on means, with a limit that keeps our pride in check and remembers that it is not us who will save this world.
You still don't grasp the meaning of the parable of the talents. The servant who did as you call for was the one who was condemned.
I did not say "about capitalism".Beyond her denial of God, what 'nonsense' did she spout about capitalism?
Capitalism is rooted in liberty not avarice. It is rooted in free trade and consumers deciding for themselves what they will buy or pass on. It is a lie to equate the desire to prosper and create wealth with avarice.
You still don't grasp the meaning of the parable of the talents. The servant who did as you call for was the one who was condemned. It was the servants who took what their Lord gave them and through TRADE increased his holdings who were praised.
YOU or any other man deciding for others what they should do, how much they can own, what they must give to support what YOU deem wise is the height of pride.
Not according to God who promises to prosper us, who gives us the ability to produce wealth. Just what do you think the man of God who creates wealth far above what he consumes is going to do with the excess? He is going to use it to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and so forth. He won't be able to do that with folks like you forbidding him from creating wealth with God's blessings.
The vast majority of people are not widows or orphans
A man who does not take care of his family (wife, children, parents) is called worse than an infidel by God.
We are called to be charitable and I am very curious where you think the extra wealth to care for an ever growing population is going to come from if we do not create wealth but merely deal with inherited wealth.
It should be OBVIOUS that finite wealth that might care for 300 million adequately is completely inadequate to care for 3 billion people let alone the over 6 billion people the world has now.
True, he was condemned by his avaricious master.
NO, he was a disobedient servant (much like the Matthew 7 'Lord, Lord' crowd) who did no service for his lord, bore false witness towards him (he claimed his lord was "a hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed" when it is clear the lord not only gave his servants talents with which to work with but had already REWARDED the two servants who bore good fruit and doubled what their lord had given them). May I remind you that those who are faithful in little will be entrusted with much greater things, those who prove faithless in little will have what little was given them taken away.But he is the only one who adhered to the laws God gave to Moses.
How is it the phrase weeping and gnashing of teeth refer to the wicked EXCEPT in this parable. God is not the author of confusion.He chose not to be wicked even though his master and his fellow-servants were. And he paid for it.
The context was the servants faithfulness to their lord. Not unlike today where so many professing Christians support abortion, theft by government proxy, gay marriage and so forth.Was Jesus preparing his disciples for how the world would treat them?
Given the context of the parable, it would seem so.
Which of the vineyard parables?In this respect it is much like the parable of the vineyard which describes how the world treats the godly.
The master in this parable represented Jesus.
NO, he was a disobedient servant (much like the Matthew 7 'Lord, Lord' crowd) who did no service for his lord, bore false witness towards him (he claimed his lord was "a hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed"
The context was the servants faithfulness to their lord.
Which of the vineyard parables?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?