Socialism vs. Capitalism

[gluadys]

I think that one of the key points on which we disagree over is entitlements. I believe the Bible supports that people are entitled to only what they themselves can produce.

Absolute nonsense from a biblical perspective. Did the Israelites produce their own manna in the wilderness?

Even if you were partially right, the bible also prescribes that people have the tools to produce their own food. When people sold themselves into slavery to pay debts, they were not only to be freed in seven years, their former master was to provide for them generously from his fields and his flocks so they would have the wherewithal to start over again.

And when people sold land to pay off debts, (or lost it when a mortgage was foreclosed) it was to be restored to the original owner whenever he could pay the price of redemption, or failing that in 50 years anyway.

Measures such as these helped ensure that people were not left mired in poverty with no means of leaving the trap. The failure to keep these covenantal laws was the basis of the prophetic denunciation of the rulers. See, for example Jeremiah 34:8-22

Interestingly, some biblical scholars believe that Jesus was preaching "the acceptable year of the Lord" (Isaiah 61:1-2, Luke 4:18-19), a reference to the Jubilee year of Leviticus 25--a time to cancel debts, liberate slaves and re-apportion the land. If there is any truth to this, you can understand why the poor flocked to him and wanted to make him king, and why he scared the bejabers out of the authorities.

I point back to the verses in my original quote. You believe that we are under obligation to help the poor, which from a moral standpoint we are as Christians but that does not translate to an entitlement.

I believe that as Christians and as the Church we are required to be compassionate and generous. But it is the government that is responsible for the fair distribution of a nation's resources. That is not a role the Church can take on. But we can exercise a prophetic ministry of advocacy for just laws and policies. We can declare the will of the Lord for just government regulation of the economy.

Yes, the poor--indeed everyone--has an entitlement to their share of what God has provided for all.

I don't think the verses you cite are relevant as they are addressed to the Church for settling matters in the Church. The early Church had little time or opportunity to develop messages for the civil authorities. Nevertheless, from the beginning, they acted to assure a fair distribution of the Church's resources to those in need. The Church can be a shining example of justice, a model for secular society to follow. As Jesus said, we are to be as a city set on a hill.

You can't save people from themselves. Some people, like my sister, make habitual life choices and no matter how many times you give them a hand up, or a hand out, they will revert back to a previous state until they make the choice to change life for themselves.

Then terrible as it seems to you, there is something in that life that attracts her more than what you offer. Find out what it is, and you can offer more appropriate help.

Because of this reality, government programs are limited to helping people 'get by' and actually do nothing other than make people less independent. I stand by this statement.

For most of the ones we are familiar with, that is so. A better example of what can be done comes from the overseas work of many development agencies (many of them supported by the churches).

You are also neglecting the record of many European countries whose social programming does not seem to have the deleterious effects you predict.

Public education, one of the few socialist government programs with a postive result that actually accomplishes what everyone wishes all welfare programs do.

You might also look at the various effective public health care systems around the world.

And when you're talking about poverty levels across different countries you will find a VERY real difference between the poverty line in the US and the poverty line in Cuba. Virtually no one in the US ever starves to death or suffers from malnutrition except in cases of abuse.

Starvation is also very rare in Cuba, Canada, Australia and most of Europe and all these countries have more socialist-style services than most parts of the US.

You can be poor and on government assistance here and still have cable t.v. and internet. Work at a major retailer and see what most food stamps are spent on-junk food. Don't believe me, ask your teller the next time you go to a Walmart or similiar outlet.

And might that not be because we permit TV commercials to be the primary educator on nutrition? Also, because the government does not restrict the use of food stamps to nutritious food? Of course, the government would have all the major food and beverage producers on their back if they did restrict which foods you can use food stamps for. Imagine the outcry if food stamps had to be used for fresh or frozen corn and not for Doritos!

btw I consider food stamps to be unnecessarily demeaning. We don't use them in Canada. We don't provide enough assistance to the poor, but we do provide money, not stamps, for food. But if stamps are how people are to get food, there is a lot that could be done to make sure it is nutritious food, and to be sure those who use food stamps get some basic nutritional information and training in how to use foods that may be unfamiliar to them.

As Christians, we do have a duty to help other people but if we are going to be using the arguement that socialism is Christian and that it is for the benefit of the poor, I'd first have to look at why so few churches have any real outreach programs.

Amen! We can't be the light of the world or the salt of the earth, or that city on the hill, if we don't first practice what we preach. I suspect a significant reason why there is so little outreach is that it is not preached. People don't like to hear preaching that disturbs their own conscience and calls for a new way of living more in accord with God's will. They just want to put some spare change on the collection plate and feel "spiritual".

It is the Christian's obligation to care for people, not the federal governments. Goodness knows the government couldn't manage it half as well as independent groups even IF it was their job.

Yes, it is the Christian's obligation and the Church's obligation to do all they can voluntarily. But it is also the obligation of all governments (municipal and state as well as federal) to do their share as well. The Church can only do so much with charity, and that becomes meaningless if all that can be done with charity is destroyed by injustice.

Assuring social justice not social charity, is the specific obligation of government, because only the government has the enforcement tools to see justice done. Much of our problem with government programs is that we tend to see the government as a channel of charity. It is not the government's role to be charitable. It is the government's role to assure the rights of the poor--to assure justice.

To take just one example, as Christians we can give food/money to the hungry, but it takes government to prevent hunger by enacting living wage laws and freeing people from dependence on charity.

Our problem is that we saddle government with a charitable role of giving to the poor (something we can and should do ourselves) and fail to ask for measures that would bring real justice to the poor, enabling them to leave dependence on charity (public or private) behind. We need to get our priorities straight.

 

[Slave2Righteousness]

Absolute nonsense from a biblical perspective. Did the Israelites produce their own manna in the wilderness?

Even if you were partially right, the bible also prescribes that people have the tools to produce their own food. When people sold themselves into slavery to pay debts, they were not only to be freed in seven years, their former master was to provide for them generously from his fields and his flocks so they would have the wherewithal to start over again.

And when people sold land to pay off debts, (or lost it when a mortgage was foreclosed) it was to be restored to the original owner whenever he could pay the price of redemption, or failing that in 50 years anyway.

Measures such as these helped ensure that people were not left mired in poverty with no means of leaving the trap. The failure to keep these covenantal laws was the basis of the prophetic denunciation of the rulers. See, for example Jeremiah 34:8-22

Interestingly, some biblical scholars believe that Jesus was preaching "the acceptable year of the Lord" (Isaiah 61:1-2, Luke 4:18-19), a reference to the Jubilee year of Leviticus 25--a time to cancel debts, liberate slaves and re-apportion the land. If there is any truth to this, you can understand why the poor flocked to him and wanted to make him king, and why he scared the bejabers out of the authorities.



I believe that as Christians and as the Church we are required to be compassionate and generous. But it is the government that is responsible for the fair distribution of a nation's resources. That is not a role the Church can take on. But we can exercise a prophetic ministry of advocacy for just laws and policies. We can declare the will of the Lord for just government regulation of the economy.

Yes, the poor--indeed everyone--has an entitlement to their share of what God has provided for all.

I don't think the verses you cite are relevant as they are addressed to the Church for settling matters in the Church. The early Church had little time or opportunity to develop messages for the civil authorities. Nevertheless, from the beginning, they acted to assure a fair distribution of the Church's resources to those in need. The Church can be a shining example of justice, a model for secular society to follow. As Jesus said, we are to be as a city set on a hill.



Then terrible as it seems to you, there is something in that life that attracts her more than what you offer. Find out what it is, and you can offer more appropriate help.



For most of the ones we are familiar with, that is so. A better example of what can be done comes from the overseas work of many development agencies (many of them supported by the churches).

You are also neglecting the record of many European countries whose social programming does not seem to have the deleterious effects you predict.



You might also look at the various effective public health care systems around the world.



Starvation is also very rare in Cuba, Canada, Australia and most of Europe and all these countries have more socialist-style services than most parts of the US.



And might that not be because we permit TV commercials to be the primary educator on nutrition? Also, because the government does not restrict the use of food stamps to nutritious food? Of course, the government would have all the major food and beverage producers on their back if they did restrict which foods you can use food stamps for. Imagine the outcry if food stamps had to be used for fresh or frozen corn and not for Doritos!

btw I consider food stamps to be unnecessarily demeaning. We don't use them in Canada. We don't provide enough assistance to the poor, but we do provide money, not stamps, for food. But if stamps are how people are to get food, there is a lot that could be done to make sure it is nutritious food, and to be sure those who use food stamps get some basic nutritional information and training in how to use foods that may be unfamiliar to them.



Amen! We can't be the light of the world or the salt of the earth, or that city on the hill, if we don't first practice what we preach. I suspect a significant reason why there is so little outreach is that it is not preached. People don't like to hear preaching that disturbs their own conscience and calls for a new way of living more in accord with God's will. They just want to put some spare change on the collection plate and feel "spiritual".




Yes, it is the Christian's obligation and the Church's obligation to do all they can voluntarily. But it is also the obligation of all governments (municipal and state as well as federal) to do their share as well. The Church can only do so much with charity, and that becomes meaningless if all that can be done with charity is destroyed by injustice.

Assuring social justice not social charity, is the specific obligation of government, because only the government has the enforcement tools to see justice done. Much of our problem with government programs is that we tend to see the government as a channel of charity. It is not the government's role to be charitable. It is the government's role to assure the rights of the poor--to assure justice.

To take just one example, as Christians we can give food/money to the hungry, but it takes government to prevent hunger by enacting living wage laws and freeing people from dependence on charity.

Our problem is that we saddle government with a charitable role of giving to the poor (something we can and should do ourselves) and fail to ask for measures that would bring real justice to the poor, enabling them to leave dependence on charity (public or private) behind. We need to get our priorities straight.

We're going to have to agree to disagree but as far as socialized medicine goes, I understand Canada to have some very real problems with their program, waiting lists to see doctors being chief among them. In the US you can more or less see a doctor on the spot.

American for-profit health care would come to Alberta, Canada, under a proposal from Premier Ralph Klein. To reduce waiting lists at hospitals, he would let the provincial government pay private clinics to perform surgery, such as hip replacements.
The widely discussed plan points out the growing discontent with socialized medicine in Canada. A survey by Toronto-based Polara showed:

• On all income levels, 74 percent of Canadians support the idea of user fees for those who can afford them -- meaning they would be required to pay out of pocket part of the cost of their medical care.
• Of respondents making C$25,000 or less, 85 percent support user fees.
• And only 23 percent support increasing taxes on workers to keep the national health system afloat.

Over the last 30 years, say critics, Canada's socialized health care system -- known as medicare -- has destroyed what was arguably the second-best health care system in the world, next to the U.S.
Rationing of health care by waiting is becoming increasingly common, and there are shortages of hospital rooms and doctors. For instance, Ontario recently conceded it needs an additional 1,000 doctors, and according to the New York Times, 23 of Toronto's 25 hospitals had to turn away ambulances one day in January. Finally, an official at Vancouver General Hospital estimates that 20 percent of heart attack patients, who should be treated in 15 minutes, are waiting an hour or more for care.
Source: Editorial, "Tired of Socialized Medicine," Investor's Business Daily, January 26, 2000. For more on Health Care

http://http://www.ncpa.org/pi/health/pd012600d.html

 

[mayfly]

Socialism does not require that the state own the means of production.

That is an idea peculiar to Marxism, which is only one version of socialism. Even in Marx's own lifetime, there were plenty of socialists who disagreed with that idea. Very few socialists would defend it today.




I have a lot of respect for Catholic Social Teachings. I see little difference between them and non-Marxist socialism.

I do not subscribe to Marxism myself, but I would call myself a socialist.

Socialism does not require that the state own the means of production.

It always works out this way. The gov't wants to control people in a socialist or commie system. Then when the gov't fails (because it cannot do things as well as free enterprise does), it blames its failures upon the people and grabs more power to itself supposedly to "correct" the problem.

Ironically we in the USA have proven that when gov't is smallest, the people prosper most. Socialism is based upon the gov't controlling everything... whether or not the gov't itself "owns" everything or just "orders and regulates" the net effect is equally bad.

 

[mayfly]

Our problem is that we saddle government with a charitable role of giving to the poor (something we can and should do ourselves) and fail to ask for measures that would bring real justice to the poor, enabling them to leave dependence on charity (public or private) behind. We need to get our priorities straight.

Perfect and well-said. Let me make a fine adjustment to your point...

Socialism/Nazism/Communism's problem is that they saddle their governments with a charitable role of giving to the poor (something private individiuals and non-government groups can and should do) and fail to ask for measures that would bring real justice to the poor, enabling them to leave dependence on charity (public or private) behind. We need to get our priorities straight.

I must add that Satan and self-promoting human sinners WANT people dependent upon them, not upon themselves and God. Think through the moral implications of that and you will see why there can never be Christian socialism. It is a contradiction in terms.

 

[gluadys]

We're going to have to agree to disagree but as far as socialized medicine goes, I understand Canada to have some very real problems with their program, waiting lists to see doctors being chief among them. In the US you can more or less see a doctor on the spot.

http://http://www.ncpa.org/pi/health/pd012600d.html

We were having problems because underfunding strained the system. Most provinces have instituted measures to reduce waiting times. I had no problem last year when I needed emergency surgery. From my first visit to the surgeon to the day of the surgery was less than 2 weeks.

The quote from Investor's Business Daily is interesting. In the first place it was written in 2000 and waiting times have been cut significantly since then.

American for-profit health care would come to Alberta, Canada, under a proposal from Premier Ralph Klein. To reduce waiting lists at hospitals, he would let the provincial government pay private clinics to perform surgery, such as hip replacements.

Several studies have shown that waiting times actually increase when private clinics get involved. Waiting times for eye surgery in Calgary (which has a high level of private invovlement) are much higher than in Edmonton where there are fewer private clinics. The average cost of the procedure in Calgary is also much higher than in Edmonton.

If this seems topsy-turvy, remember that it is the same doctors dividing their time between for-profit clinics and public hospitals. The more time they spend at private clinics, the less time they apportion to public hospitals, thus increasing the wait times there.

Having the provincial medicare plan pay for the private care only makes the care more expensive, again reducing the amount of care available, and increasing wait times further--unless, of course, taxes are raised to compensate.

I have nothing against private clinics, but I think they should not get a dime of public money, nor should the doctors and staff be reimbursed for their services from taxes. Let any patient who prefers private care pay 100% of the cost of the care.

The widely discussed plan points out the growing discontent with socialized medicine in Canada.

"Debated" and even "contested" would be more accurate descriptions than "discussed". Check back into the op-eds and letters to the editor from that time.

"Discontent with socialized medicine"? Not much evidence of that. Check out the Romanov report on the Future of Health Care in Canada. Much more comprehensive than a poll.

A survey by Toronto-based Polara showed:

Without seeing the actual wording of the poll, I can't really comment on it.

Over the last 30 years, say critics, Canada's socialized health care system -- known as medicare -- has destroyed what was arguably the second-best health care system in the world, next to the U.S.

Well some critics might say that. But this fails since it was socialism that created the second-best health care system in the first place. Many more critics placed the blame on the withdrawal of much federal support for medicare combined with the neo-con policies of Klein in Alberta and Harris in Ontario.

 

[gluadys]

Mayfly:

Judging from your two posts, I think you have read too little on socialist theory and practice to comment knowledgeably on it. Furthermore, you have apparently read only material that condemns it.

As a result, you misrepresent some basics and end up condemning a straw man.

Reading your posts reminds me of some of the anti-Catholic literature that some Protestant sects distribute. Most of it based on an inaccurate portrayal of the Catholic Church.

You wouldn't think much of someone arguing against Catholicism if all they had ever learned about it came from such negative polemics.

Same goes for socialism. You owe it to yourself to at least learn why many people find it attractive. Even if you never come to agree with them, you will have better arguments against it, because they will be based on real flaws, not pseudo-problems.

 

[Slave2Righteousness]

I have nothing against private clinics, but I think they should not get a dime of public money, nor should the doctors and staff be reimbursed for their services from taxes. Let any patient who prefers private care pay 100% of the cost of the care.

I'm working a double today so I don't have much time to comment but this comment in particular caught my eye.....If government funded healthcare is all about helping people, then why in the world should private clinics get no government help but the ones which the governement controls do? That alone makes it jump from a public works to a Big Brother plan to expand the role of the government and control more of the everyday lives of its citizens.

What you purpose would only be fair in any sense of the word if those who opted for private, non-government suplemented healthcare weren't paying for it.

 

[Tenebrae]

Matthew 20: 1-16

Verses taken out of context

Those refer, to the fact that some will live their whole life for Christ, and some will make the equivalent of a deathbed confession and be allowed into heaven (as I have always been taught)

And No I am not a capitalist, however if someone works their butt off to get ahead I dont believe they should be penalised for that dedication

 

[gluadys]

I'm working a double today so I don't have much time to comment but this comment in particular caught my eye.....If government funded healthcare is all about helping people, then why in the world should private clinics get no government help but the ones which the governement controls do? That alone makes it jump from a public works to a Big Brother plan to expand the role of the government and control more of the everyday lives of its citizens.

What you purpose would only be fair in any sense of the word if those who opted for private, non-government suplemented healthcare weren't paying for it.

Not really. People who pay for private schooling are still required to support public schools because they benefit from the public schools even though they don't use them. Same applies to health care. The only use for private clinics is to be allowed to jump the queue and that is a privilege the tax-payer should not have to pay for. Just as the tax-payer does not pay for the privilege of the wealthy to use private schools.

 

[gluadys]

Verses taken out of context

Those refer, to the fact that some will live their whole life for Christ, and some will make the equivalent of a deathbed confession and be allowed into heaven (as I have always been taught)

And No I am not a capitalist, however if someone works their butt off to get ahead I dont believe they should be penalised for that dedication

But those who worked through the day were not penalized. They got what they agreed to. That should not be described as being penalized.

Why should the parable apply only to heaven? The landowner would know that a denarius was the minimum wage and that if he paid less, those who got only part of a day's pay would have nothing to eat. So he generously makes sure that everyone who worked for him, even for an hour, gets enough to live on.

 

[Slave2Righteousness]

Not really. People who pay for private schooling are still required to support public schools because they benefit from the public schools even though they don't use them. Same applies to health care. The only use for private clinics is to be allowed to jump the queue and that is a privilege the tax-payer should not have to pay for. Just as the tax-payer does not pay for the privilege of the wealthy to use private schools.

Which is another social injustice alltogether.

And you're reading too much into those Matthew verses IMHO if you can support socialism from it. It was a parable, it isn't to be taken literally.

 

[gluadys]

Which is another social injustice alltogether.

And you're reading too much into those Matthew verses IMHO if you can support socialism from it. It was a parable, it isn't to be taken literally.

The purpose of parables is to teach.

 

[Slave2Righteousness]

The purpose of parables is to teach.

Well of course... but it was in no way advocating socialism. Jesus used parables to explain to people concepts that they would not have otherwise accepted by tying them to earthly things they could compare them to. That's like saying the parable about the virgins was telling us to make sure we have a full tank of gas before going to a wedding.. You've taken it completely out of context and distorted its meaning for your own political purposes.

 

[FluffyRabbitHunter]

So... er... what is the parable of the ten virgins, what is the message, what is the parable of the tenants and what is the message?

 

[Slave2Righteousness]

So... er... what is the parable of the ten virgins, what is the message, what is the parable of the tenants and what is the message?

the point is Christ came to preach the kingdom of God, not build a kingdom of man. His parables always referred to the coming of His kingdom. He didn't preach social justice or equality through them because He didn't have to. His actions and what He said outside of parables tell us what our duties are as far as loving our neighbors, the downtrodden, widows, the sick, and children are. Matthew 13 makes it pretty clear the purpose of parables and why He spoke in them, and it wasn't just to teach because that which He was really teaching about would have gone right over the heads of the people because (Mat 13:13) "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

 

[mayfly]

Amen to the above. Christ said His kingdom was not of this world. And John wrote we are in the world but not of the world. Paul says we are travellers here below, but our real home is in Heaven. This puts perspective on Christ's parables.

So what is Christ getting at? He wants sinners to repent and demons not to know what He is up to. It worked. They crucified Him. Otherwise had He spoken plainly, the demons would not have let Him die.

 

[Slave2Righteousness]

Amen to the above. Christ said His kingdom was not of this world. And John wrote we are in the world but not of the world. Paul says we are travellers here below, but our real home is in Heaven. This puts perspective on Christ's parables.

So what is Christ getting at? He wants sinners to repent and demons not to know what He is up to. It worked. They crucified Him. Otherwise had He spoken plainly, the demons would not have let Him die.

right...which kinda makes you wonder how much they knew and didn't. Surely they knew the prophecies and everything written in the old testament, but at the same time they came out crying "Why are you here to torment us before the time!" in at least one place...which kinda makes you think they didn't know why He came. Which if they knew, they wouldn't have crucified Him, but at the same time, it is not as though Christ walking the earth wasn't causing problems for them anyways....okay, way off topic but I had to ponder aloud. sorry.

 

[FluffyRabbitHunter]

the point is Christ came to preach the kingdom of God, not build a kingdom of man. His parables always referred to the coming of His kingdom. He didn't preach social justice or equality through them because He didn't have to. His actions and what He said outside of parables tell us what our duties are as far as loving our neighbors, the downtrodden, widows, the sick, and children are. Matthew 13 makes it pretty clear the purpose of parables and why He spoke in them, and it wasn't just to teach because that which He was really teaching about would have gone right over the heads of the people because (Mat 13:13) "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

This is a contradiction in terms. The Kingdom of God IS in the world because Jesus is here. And his mission is social justice pouring out into the world as an expression of love.

It is because the parables are about the Kingdom that they apply so directly to the situations we find ourselves in. The parable of the many workers directly maps into our lives: with God, you are given everything you need. It's a massive revolution to the world's corrupt way of thinking that only if you work hard and submit yourself to tirelessly making money for someone will you get fed. Jesus' way, the Kingdom's way, is that everyone gets fed.

 

[Slave2Righteousness]

This is a contradiction in terms. The Kingdom of God IS in the world because Jesus is here. And his mission is social justice pouring out into the world as an expression of love.

It is because the parables are about the Kingdom that they apply so directly to the situations we find ourselves in. The parable of the many workers directly maps into our lives: with God, you are given everything you need. It's a massive revolution to the world's corrupt way of thinking that only if you work hard and submit yourself to tirelessly making money for someone will you get fed. Jesus' way, the Kingdom's way, is that everyone gets fed.

First of all.. the workers did this thing called working, that is why they were paid, it wasn't charity. I agree with whoever stated before that it was symbolic of those who accept salvation and work tirelessly their whole lives and those who accept it later on near death and that each is given what they were promised so why be upset by it.

Secondly there are WAY too many verses in the Bible that contradict your socialist agenda. I've already brought up a few in one of the threads but here is a few more for anyone who would like to pick and choose scripture and then twist its meaning while completely disregarding any others:

Gal 6:4-5 "But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden. "

2 Tim 3:7-12 "7For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; 8Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."

Paul and his followers didn't just help out, they paid their debt IN FULL through labor they provided.


Whoa, Fluffy... you said His kingdom IS in the world because He was here? Well lets see what the Gospel of John has to say about it.
John 18:35-36

35Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.



Jeesh...well it seems that Jesus was in the world when He said His kingdom was NOT in this world.....well is Fluffy or the Holy Bible correct.. I'm sorry, but I have to lean a little harder on the Bible than Fluffy. Makes a good bit of sense when you read John 17:16 "They are not of the world, even as I AM NOT OF THE WORLD." Meaning He wasn't from here... He left His kingdom (heaven!?) to come to earth-where His kingdom isn't (until we get to Revelation).. starts to make sense..


So you're saying that Paul first of all rejected Christ's teachings of "free food, homes, and sports cars regardless of work ethic because we're all equal and lets stick it to the man!" when he wrote Galatians and 2nd Timothy.. AND that Jesus got confused when speaking to Pilate? Some pretty big claims......

 

[FluffyRabbitHunter]

First of all.. the workers did this thing called working, that is why they were paid, it wasn't charity. I agree with whoever stated before that it was symbolic of those who accept salvation and work tirelessly their whole lives and those who accept it later on near death and that each is given what they were promised so why be upset by it.

I believe it also talks about fair wages and fair trade. Presumably you believe in that anyway. If the Kingdom is turning on its head our definition of fairness, then perhaps we need to apply that to trade too!

Secondly there are WAY too many verses in the Bible that contradict your socialist agenda. I've already brought up a few in one of the threads but here is a few more for anyone who would like to pick and choose scripture and then twist its meaning while completely disregarding any others:

Gal 6:4-5 "But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden. "

2 Tim 3:7-12 "7For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; 8Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."

Paul and his followers didn't just help out, they paid their debt IN FULL through labor they provided.

None of those verses 'contradict socialism'. Working hard isn't emdemic to capitalism. Working hard produced labour.

If anything 'each according to his abillity, each according to his need' and 'the workers shall enjoy the fruits of their own labour' rather support that! Clearly you're not very well read up on the subject!

Whoa, Fluffy... you said His kingdom IS in the world because He was here? Well lets see what the Gospel of John has to say about it.
John 18:35-36

35Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Context, dear, context. The Kingdom of God as an entity is not being refered to here. Rather, Jesus is talking about why his followers aren't coming to rescue him, as you know. The reason is that his followers are in the world but not of it: they work tirelessly for fellow man but do not use the violence that their oppressors use. I hardly think you can use a passage explaining why bands of Jesus' followers didn't rescue him from crucifixion can be used against socialism!

Jeesh...well it seems that Jesus was in the world when e said His kingdom was NOT in this world.....well is Fluffy or the Holy Bible correct.. I'm sorry, but I have to lean a little harder on the Bible than Fluffy. Makes a good bit of sense when you read John 17:16 "They are not of the world, even as I AM NOT OF THE WORLD." Meaning He wasn't from here... He left His kingdom (heaven!?) to come to earth-where His kingdom isn't (until we get to Revelation).. starts to make sense..

Firstly, stop your patronising nonsense. Just because you can quote an out of context post without performing any sort of intelligent exegesis or use it effectively, rather setting it against something I said with a completely different argument in mind, doesn't mean you can act like a jerk. Thanks.

The point of Revelation is that the Kingdom is coming. We're charged with building it, to make disciples, to fight powers and principalities, to establish the kingdom. The entire point of the universe is that, at the cross, Heaven and Creation collided. 'Heaven' and 'The Kingdom' in the context we are using them are not interchangable - we both know we're talking about the Kingdom as given in St John and those passages which point to it.

So you're saying that Paul first of all rejected Christ's teachings of "free food, homes, and sports cars regardless of work ethic because we're all equal and lets stick it to the man!" when he wrote Galatians and 2nd Timothy.. AND that Jesus got confused when speaking to Pilate? Some pretty big claims......

What nonsense is this? Where did I talk about free sports cars? Don't straw man here. We're talking about a world in which the richest 3 have more than the poorest 600,000,000 and 1% of the world's adults control 40% of its wealth, and a world in which millions and millions of God's loved people starve to death because rich men in rich countries get greedy. World poverty has little to do with hard work, as you know.