Socialism vs. Capitalism

[VolRaider]

Both are human inventions. Therefore, both have flaws. I voted for neither.

 

[Rageprophet]

Matthew 24:14-30 the Parable of the Talents
you cannot convince me that this even comes close to resembling socialism, God goes on to tell us that you reap what you have sown in Galations 6:7 which would be more akin to capitalism in that you work hard and make good sound financial decisions and you can increase your financial status

Matthew 26:11 then tells us about the woman who annointed Jesus feet and Christs throws this verse at us "the poor you will always have with you" this hits me like a slug to the chest. In context we are talking about selling the oil and giving it to the poor right? Then it seems to me that Jesus is saying in most cases there is no amount of money that you can give to the poor that will make them no longer poor there will always be poor people because for the most part they make poor financial decisions they waste money on foolish ventures and squander whatever profits they gain in a socialists society we reward their folly and continue to prop them up making absolutely certain that they never ever grow or mature in this area in a capatalist society we reward drive hard work and sound fiscal responsibility, now do some people work hard and make good financial decisions in a capatilist society and are still poor, sure, but it is by no means the norm in my honest real word experience the lower down the ladder of payscales you go the more dysfunctional and sluggish types of people you are going to find with the odd strong worker mixed in but those people are working their way up it would be impossible to not notice them and therefore they get promoted while the people who are content to be lazy and clockwatch and show up late those people are there perpetually. Capitalism is not perfect but at least it offers the opportunity to apply yourself dig in and move up through hard work and dedication.

Socialism on the other hand is so incredibly non biblical I am astonished that on christian forums it is ahead of capitalism ASTONISHED. It breeds lazyness and a grand sense of entitlement not based on God but a system where you look to your government to take care of your needs, GOVERNMENT CANNOT take care of you and if you put your faith in government you will be let down. I could go on and on about the cataclysmic incompetence of America's govenrment right now, but I would exhaust myself and you would have to be decieved to think that it is effecient how can this take care of anything or anybody.

Capitalism vs Socialism -I vote Capitalism for there is currently a lack of a better system until Christ returns.

As a side not I have no doubt at all that the Antichrist will insitute a socialist society at least some variation.

 

[Assyrian]

Rev 18:10 ESV They will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, "Alas! Alas! You great city, you mighty city, Babylon! For in a single hour your judgment has come."
11 And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo anymore,
12 cargo of gold, silver, jewels, pearls, fine linen, purple cloth, silk, scarlet cloth, all kinds of scented wood, all kinds of articles of ivory, all kinds of articles of costly wood, bronze, iron and marble,
13 cinnamon, spice, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, oil, fine flour, wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, and slaves, that is, human souls.
14 "The fruit for which your soul longed has gone from you, and all your delicacies and your splendors are lost to you, never to be found again!"
15 The merchants of these wares, who gained wealth from her, will stand far off, in fear of her torment, weeping and mourning aloud,
16 "Alas, alas, for the great city that was clothed in fine linen, in purple and scarlet, adorned with gold, with jewels, and with pearls!
17 For in a single hour all this wealth has been laid waste." And all shipmasters and seafaring men, sailors and all whose trade is on the sea, stood far off
18 and cried out as they saw the smoke of her burning, "What city was like the great city?"
19 And they threw dust on their heads as they wept and mourned, crying out, "Alas, alas, for the great city where all who had ships at sea grew rich by her wealth! For in a single hour she has been laid waste.

 

[gluadys]

Matthew 24:14-30 the Parable of the Talents
you cannot convince me that this even comes close to resembling socialism, God goes on to tell us that you reap what you have sown in Galations 6:7 which would be more akin to capitalism in that you work hard and make good sound financial decisions and you can increase your financial status

And what does it profit to gain the whole world financially and lose one's soul? Maybe we need to think about what seed we need to be sowing.

Matthew 26:11 then tells us about the woman who annointed Jesus feet and Christs throws this verse at us "the poor you will always have with you" this hits me like a slug to the chest. In context we are talking about selling the oil and giving it to the poor right?

In part. But Jesus is also quoting Deuteronomy 15:11 in which this phrase is immediately followed by the command: "Open your hand to the poor and a needy neighbour in your land."

Further, v. 11 is part of a whole chapter on community solidarity and the handling of debts, including the remission of debts and debt slavery. In vv. 4-5 there is the promise "There will be one in need among you . . .if only you obey the Lord your God by diligently observing this entire commandment I command you today." It is worthwhile reading the whole chapter.

In context, the reference to the poor being always with us really means we will always have the opportunity to obey God's command in our dealings with the poor. It is not at all a recommendation of helpless acceptance of poverty.

Then it seems to me that Jesus is saying in most cases there is no amount of money that you can give to the poor that will make them no longer poor there will always be poor people because for the most part they make poor financial decisions they waste money on foolish ventures and squander whatever profits they gain

This is simply prejudicial poor-bashing and blaming the victim for his/her own plight. And funnily enough many people who make this argument will contradict it by pointing to stories (not all apocryphal) of millionaires who began their life in poverty.

The bible never blames the poor for their poverty; it blames those who deprive the poor of their rights.

Capitalism is not perfect but at least it offers the opportunity to apply yourself dig in and move up through hard work and dedication.

The same can be said of socialism or any other system of government & economic policy. Socialism, as much as capitalism, requires the energy and commitment of people willing to apply themselves to the task at hand.

Socialism on the other hand is so incredibly non biblical I am astonished that on christian forums it is ahead of capitalism ASTONISHED. It breeds lazyness and a grand sense of entitlement not based on God but a system where you look to your government to take care of your needs, GOVERNMENT CANNOT take care of you and if you put your faith in government you will be let down.

People are entitled to rely on their government; they ought to be able to rely on their government. A government they cannot rely on is one that is not doing its job, one that is not carrying out its God-given mandate.

If you cannot rely on your government, your responsibility as a citizen is to call it out of its sin and back to its proper function under God. That is 9/10 of what the prophets of Israel did.

 

[Rageprophet]

No where in the entire bible does it give us a mandate for collective salvation to give to our government so we can be free of the burden of being called by God to give charitably to the righteous poor by instead giving to a government so we can then wash our hands of the matter and think we are right with God because we gave to our socialist government and now we are straight. This philosophy was created by man to make everyone feel good about helping the poor and less fortunate and is no where to be found in the bible that we need to give our money to a government who then without any oversight distributes the money out to everyone equally this is so foreign a concept to the bible which teaches reaping and sowing as well as personal responsibility and not to mention HE WHO DOES NOT WORK DOES NOT EAT how does that fit into your socialist redistributive government while robbing any and all chances for charity and compassion and mercy for people to give to the poor or bless them to forfeit there right to act as the spirit guides them by just giving it all to the government and then being done with it while at the same time not allowing the perfectly capable of having the glorious opportunity to feel hunger and allowing them the chance to to realize, you know what I kind of like eating food I think I should probably get a job so I can do some more of that, there is nothing biblical about propping up the sluggard or the lazy and blessing their sloth this is a perverse twisting of the scripture and as history can attest in even the pinnacle of socialist utopia's that is the scandinavian countries socialism breeds to a worsening degree through multiple genrations a superior sense of entitlement.

Who said anything about loosing your soul because we worked hard and God blesses us, random scriptures thrown around does not justify socialism or the basic tenants of God blessing his people like Solomon and Job for example were they in danger of hell fire because God chose to bless them or were they supposed to redistribute that blessing to all the poor in the area, because I did not see those verses anywhere in the scripture and God called job righteous even with all the wealth he had. Also I notice you seem to be bending the scripture once again to fit into socialism because where the scripture states that there will be none in need among YOU does not seem to infer those outside of God's will but instead that is a promise to God's people, since it does qualify it by stating if you obey the Lord.

I never qualified that all rich were righteous rich and all poor to be unrighteous poor.

People are not entitled to rely on there government, sorry I cannot agree with you on the were the Germans entitled to rely on there's what about the Russians or how about America now am I supposed to be supportive of a government where the presidents pastor preaches G D America or where Jesus Christ's name cannot be spoken without fear of offending someone or where prayer is banned in schools?

One more thing to note that if anyone would try and use the United States as a comparison for capitalism it is flawed because Hong Kong is more Capitalist than America.

 

[BondiHarry]

And what does it profit to gain the whole world financially and lose one's soul? Maybe we need to think about what seed we need to be sowing.

This is a question everyone who looks at his neighbor's property with covetous eyes and schemes to take that property for their own should ask as well. A thief is a thief if they are rich or poor.

In part. But Jesus is also quoting Deuteronomy 15:11 in which this phrase is immediately followed by the command: "Open your hand to the poor and a needy neighbour in your land."

Yes, YOUR hand. I keep missing the scripture which says open your neighbors hand to the poor etc. or the scripture where God delegates to any man His authority in judging the faithfulness of His stewards or to take from the bad steward what God has given them.

Further, v. 11 is part of a whole chapter on community solidarity and the handling of debts, including the remission of debts and debt slavery. In vv. 4-5 there is the promise "There will be one in need among you . . .if only you obey the Lord your God by diligently observing this entire commandment I command you today." It is worthwhile reading the whole chapter.

Do you want us to renounce our Christian faith and convert to Judaism then? Why do you cite law that was given to the children of Israel, law that does not apply to the Christian who is under grace (Jesus does preach compassion for those in need and treating the least among us as we would treat Him but He did not tell us to embrace these practices; perhaps God's indwelling Holy Spirit in us is all the guidance we need)?

In context, the reference to the poor being always with us really means we will always have the opportunity to obey God's command in our dealings with the poor. It is not at all a recommendation of helpless acceptance of poverty.

And we will always have the opportunity to practice justice with all men including the rich. One thing I marvel at is how much harm is done to the poor by those who are purportedly trying to help them. I am thinking specifically at the many misguided attempts by government such as establishing a minimum wage, Social Security and other entitlement programs where none of the money we are forced to 'contribute' is even set aside for us in those programs but is used for others or spent by the government on other programs (in Social Security they put in IOUs in the form of Treasury bonds ... this farce of the Social Security Trust Fund was just exposed by Obama when he said he could not guarantee that SS checks would go out in August; quite an odd admission IF the SSTF is flush with money) and so forth. Perhaps this is why God tasked us as individuals and the church with caring for the poor and did not give that authority to government.

This is simply prejudicial poor-bashing and blaming the victim for his/her own plight. And funnily enough many people who make this argument will contradict it by pointing to stories (not all apocryphal) of millionaires who began their life in poverty.

The bible never blames the poor for their poverty; it blames those who deprive the poor of their rights.

Actually the Bible blames many bad decisions people make for the cause of their poverty, from "he who does not work, neither shall he eat" to the admonitions in Proverbs. And I am curious since you say "it blames those who deprive the poor of their rights", would you list what those rights are?

The same can be said of socialism or any other system of government & economic policy. Socialism, as much as capitalism, requires the energy and commitment of people willing to apply themselves to the task at hand

No, the same can not be said of statist systems. Statism is an un-Godly invention of men which mandates the violation of many of God's commands to us such as loving our neighbor as ourself, not coveting the property of others, not stealing that property, not setting up idols and so forth.

People are entitled to rely on their government; they ought to be able to rely on their government.

"Put NOT your trust in princes (ie government), nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help" (Psalm 146:3). Yet God tells us NOT TO RELY ON GOVERNMENT. God tells us, for the things we need, to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and they will be added to us. Since you have a different opinon please cite the scriptue which led to your conclusion here.

A government they cannot rely on is one that is not doing its job, one that is not carrying out its God-given mandate.

What are the God given mandates for government?

 

[gluadys]

This is a question everyone who looks at his neighbor's property with covetous eyes and schemes to take that property for their own should ask as well. A thief is a thief if they are rich or poor.

And the rich appear to be the most covetous. Look at mining corporations who connive with governments to deny people their right to unpolluted water and get away with it because the people are poor. Blasting away mountain tops instead of mining responsibly, because they get rich faster that way. yes, a thief is a thief if they are rich or poor, but the worst is the thief protected by law. And those are always the rich.

Yes, YOUR hand. I keep missing the scripture which says open your neighbors hand to the poor etc. or the scripture where God delegates to any man His authority in judging the faithfulness of His stewards or to take from the bad steward what God has given them.

Stewards are not just individuals. Governments are stewards too, and servants of God appointed to their position to administer his law. God does delegate to them the right to collect taxes and to administer justice fairly. And he does judge their faithfulness. The principal beneficiary of Israel's primary tax (the tithe--taxes imposed by the king in addition to the tithe) were to be the poor: first the priests and Levites who had no landed wealth, then the rest of the poor. The explicit command was that every third year's tithe was to go to the poor (not priests or Levites).

When was the last time 1/3 of your government's budget was devoted to the alleviation of poverty?

Do you want us to renounce our Christian faith and convert to Judaism then? Why do you cite law that was given to the children of Israel, law that does not apply to the Christian who is under grace (Jesus does preach compassion for those in need and treating the least among us as we would treat Him but He did not tell us to embrace these practices; perhaps God's indwelling Holy Spirit in us is all the guidance we need)?

I cite law which is the minimum standard for Christians. Under grace we should do even better than what the law requires. I cite law to make the point that God did indeed set down laws--not suggestions and exhortations--but laws concerning the distribution of wealth and the rights of the poor to their share of the nations wealth. I cite law because Jesus tells us he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it.

No, we can't go back to those particular laws; they were appropriate in a small agricultural nation but would make no sense today. But we can find in them the principles by which any nation should abide. And, because we are under grace, surpass them in righteousness. God never commanded the Israelites to hold all things in common, but the early church chose to do so in God's grace.

So the real point is what does the Holy Spirit say to the church? What model of government action would lead to the same respect for the poor, the same systematic attention to the needs of all, the same protection of the vulnerable from the exploitation of the powerful? That is what, as citizens, Christians need to visualize and support.

Personally, I think that will include policies many people call "socialist" but I am not really hung up on labels. I don't think everything called "capitalist" is bad or everything called "socialist" is good.

And we will always have the opportunity to practice justice with all men including the rich. One thing I marvel at is how much harm is done to the poor by those who are purportedly trying to help them.

Oh boy, I couldn't agree with you more there. Too many programs to help the poor don't even consult the poor. Or they get re-arranged to provide as much profit as possible to the benefactors instead of the poor. And a lot of it comes from thinking poverty is mostly a problem of the poor--so the programs are aimed at changing the poor instead of changing the situations that create poverty.

I am thinking specifically at the many misguided attempts by government such as establishing a minimum wage,

Scripture says the labourer is worthy of his hire. Minimum wage is an attempt to make sure he gets what his work is worth. Better if all minimum wages met the standard of a living wage--a person should be able to live a day on a day's wage, no?

Even under minimum wage there is still a lot of undue exploitation of labour. And minimum wage doesn't help much when a lot of jobs are part-time, or there are simply not enough paying jobs to go around. Everybody needs a minimum income from some source. If one does not insist on employers paying minimum wage, the rest of a person's income has to come from taxes, and the income of the unemployed also has to come from taxes. So it is better for the taxpayer to have the employer pay a fair wage for labour in order to direct tax support to the unemployed and underemployed.

Social Security and other entitlement programs where none of the money we are forced to 'contribute' is even set aside for us in those programs but is used for others or spent by the government on other programs (in Social Security they put in IOUs in the form of Treasury bonds ... this farce of the Social Security Trust Fund was just exposed by Obama when he said he could not guarantee that SS checks would go out in August; quite an odd admission IF the SSTF is flush with money) and so forth.

Well, one needs to distinguish between the principle of social security and the particular means of supplying it. I don't know the American system well enough to comment on it, and I am sure it has problems.

But the principle is that people need security and so security in one form or another needs to be provided. Social Security, I believe, is supposed to provide financial security in particular for the aged. They are certainly entitled. Just as the laborer is entitled to his wage, the elderly are entitled to reap the fruit of previous work as it has been set aside for that purpose.

If that is not happening as it should, of course it should be fixed. Bad investments or irresponsible management can plague any pension system, public or private. But it doesn't take away the responsibility of the nation to see to the welfare of its senior citizens.

Perhaps this is why God tasked us as individuals and the church with caring for the poor and did not give that authority to government.

Ah, but God did give that authority to the government, in Israel, and even in Rome and Babylon. For the judgment that falls on the latter nations is related to their failure to be responsible governments in this respect. And also the judgments that fell on Israel.

Actually the Bible blames many bad decisions people make for the cause of their poverty, from "he who does not work, neither shall he eat"

Just where in Corinthians does it say that Paul is speaking of the poor here? Have you never heard of the "idle rich"? In fact, Paul is probably speaking of young men who have become clients of rich patrons and so have plenty of time on their hands to wander about bothering people and stirring up trouble. Poor Corinthians were probably very busy working. Or begging, which is also a form of work. Paul is encouraging a culture of industry which will free people from having to depend on the largesse of benefactors who tie unacceptable strings on their proteges.

to the admonitions in Proverbs.

There is one admonition in Proverbs about "go to the ant, you sluggard"

There are also these:
A poor man's field may produce abundant food, but injustice sweeps it away.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

A poor man pleads for mercy, but a rich man answers harshly.

If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.

Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court.

A ruler who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops.

The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.

If a king judges the poor with fairness, his throne will always be secure.

Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.

And I am curious since you say "it blames those who deprive the poor of their rights", would you list what those rights are?

Perhaps you should ask the writer of Proverbs.


But here are some from scripture:

food--everyone is entitled to food sufficient for their daily needs

In ancient Israel, there were several provisions in law to assure the right to food. The right to glean was one. Anyone could go through a field at any time and take what they needed to eat at the moment. Fields and orchards and vineyards were not to be completely harvested, but some left for the gleaners. A portion of tithes collected were for the poor. (Tithes were normally collected in kind, not cash.) Interestingly, laws also provided for the right to food of domestic and wild animals as well as the poor.

Of course, charity was another way to provide for the poor, but the point here is that charity was additional to what was owed to the poor under the law.

clothing--an interesting provision here is the law on pledges taken to secure a loan. The poorest owned only the clothes on their back; if they had to take a loan, they had nothing to offer as pledge but their cloak or outer garment. The law provided that the creditor could only hold the cloak during the day, and had to return it at sundown so the poor man could use it as a blanket at night. (So Amos declares judgment on those who lay down beside the altar of God on garments taken in pledge Amos 2:8)

credit--a person is not to be refused a loan at need, even if the borrower does not expect repayment. Jesus reiterates this injunction in the Sermon on the Mount.

forgiveness of debts--under Sabbath regulations, debts were to be cancelled every seventh year (which is why people were tempted to refuse loans in the sixth year). If a person was paying off a loan by working as a slave, it was to be considered payed in full after seven years and the person released.

Debt forgiveness is a major theme in Jesus' teaching too, and is even found in the Lord's Prayer (Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors is an alternate to the more common Forgive us our trespasses, etc. and closer to the meaning of the Greek.)

a means of livelihood--the primary means of livelihood in ancient times was agriculture, for which one needs land. So the law provided that land was not ever to be sold in perpetuity. The original owner always had the right of redemption, and if he was not able to redeem the land by repurchasing it, it was still to be restored to him or his heirs in the year of Jubilee.

Also, in the case of the slave released after seven years, he was not to be sent away empty-handed but given a generous provision of grain, oil, wine, etc. so that he had something to begin a new life with.

a fair hearing--in any court case, the rights of the poor are to be defended and judgment not corrupted by bribes.

These are some with specific references in the law of Moses, but one can also infer expectations from the denunciations of the prophets. Jeremiah, for example, castigates a king who conscripts labour and then withholds wages. Amos speaks of those who not only kept garments in pledge, but also purchased wine "with fines they imposed" a suggestion that the poor were subjected to unjust laws.

"Put NOT your trust in princes (ie government), nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help" (Psalm 146:3). Yet God tells us NOT TO RELY ON GOVERNMENT. God tells us, for the things we need, to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and they will be added to us. Since you have a different opinon please cite the scriptue which led to your conclusion here.

Indeed, seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Yet the state, the structure of social order, is authorized by God, and who is there to administer righteousness if not the authorities God has lifted up.

Governments can be the enemies of God and when they are they must be resisted. But they are not to be resisted because they are governments, but because they are unjust governments flouting the will of God. And to identify unjust governments we need to have a vision of a just government, of what a society that honours God will have as a government.

Israel was called to be a model for all nations so that all nations would come to her to learn the ways of God. Instead her kings imitated the nations and so God visited her sins on her. When you read the prophets, you find three major themes in the indictment of Israel

She no longer worshipped God, but chose other gods
She profaned the Sabbath (which includes the provisions of Sabbath year and Jubilee as well as the weekly Sabbath)
She broke the covenant, especially its terms of providing for the poor. Her leaders oppressed God's people instead of shepherding them as was their duty both as individuals and as national leaders.

Yet God never commands the abolition of government.

So it is not government per se that is the problem. The problem is government that sees itself as autonomous, not accountable to God, free to do as it pleases, and ready to oppress the vulnerable to accommodate the rich and powerful.

Of course, few governments are wholly evil (some exceptions come to mind); most are a jumble of attempted good corrupted by greed and shortsightedness.

So while we should be able to rely on government, practically we need to be suspicious of government as well, for the only truly reliable government is one that is itself relying on God and holds itself accountable to God. Human governments in general don't meet that standard.

Nevertheless, with a vision of what government should be, derived from scripture, we can always use whatever influence we have to nudge it closer to that ideal.

What are the God given mandates for government?

A good example is Psalm 72. This was a coronation psalm written as a prayer for a king and both asking blessings and outlining his duties. Note particularly v. 4 and vv. 12-14

 

[gluadys]

No where in the entire bible does it give us a mandate for collective salvation to give to our government

Of course not. Government, whether capitalist, socialist, monarchical, republican, oligarchic, tyrannical, democratic or whatever is not about salvation.

But government is a necessity of human living, one of the institutions ordained of God for the good order of human society. That is why scripture enjoins us to pray for those in authority; that is why scripture sees all governmental authorities (even the bad ones) as under the authority of God and deriving their authority from God.

By and large, human governments don't acknowledge that their authority comes from God, and so we often see arrogance and lust for wealth and power dominate politics. But it behoves us to seek out what God expects of a government and work toward that so far as we have the capacity to do that. Not as a matter of salvation--but as an example to the world--as Israel was meant to be.

so we can be free of the burden of being called by God to give charitably

Ah, but socialism (or any style of government) is not about charity to the poor. It is about justice for the poor. As an individual I can only offer charity and I always have that responsibility no matter how good or bad the government. But it takes laws and policies to deliver justice to the poor, and that is a function of government. As Christians, one of the things we need to ask about laws is whether they are just, especially from the perspective of the poor. Or do they lay onerous burdens on the poor, perpetuating, and even causing poverty.

to the righteous poor

And we are absolutely not to arrogate to ourselves any judgment of who is righteous or unrighteous or to limit either our generosity or our justice to the righteous only. Rather, as our Lord commanded, we are to imitate the perfection of God whose generosity provides for the just and the unjust, for the evil as well as the good. Jesus said to give to ALL who ask of you.

by instead giving to a government so we can then wash our hands of the matter and think we are right with God because we gave to our socialist government and now we are straight.

Well, of course not. Personal responsibility and government responsibility don't cancel each other out. The issue is: what is the government's responsibility under God. As Christians that is what we need to uphold and to demand from whatever government we are placed under, so far as we can.

Further, we need to consider that for at least some Christians, their personal responsibility is to be part of the government, as an elected representative, or officer holder. And the responsibility of the rest of us is to encourage them in establishing and enforcing good laws and policies that accord with God's will concerning a good social order.

This philosophy was created by man to make everyone feel good about helping the poor and less fortunate and is no where to be found in the bible that we need to give our money to a government who then without any oversight distributes the money out to everyone equally

Well then, let's not look at human philosophy, but at what is laid out for us in scripture. Scripture does not enjoin that government have no oversight. All authority comes from God and all in authority are responsible to God. And when kings and priests and judges forgot to exercise authority under God according to the law, God sent prophets to warn them not to follow the ways of the world, but the commandments of Moses. Through the prophets, God denounced their neglect and oppression of the poor and enjoined the restoration of the sort of good government which prevented endemic poverty.

In a democracy, it is a citizen's right and obligation to be sure a government does not act without oversight. We are all to fulfill the role of a prophet keeping our government on a straight course. So we are to set out what taxes the government is entitled to collect and how those taxes are to be spent.

Christians, both as citizens overseeing the government and as authorities within the government, need to seek out in the scriptures what God enjoins as the obligations of government to the people, especially the weaker of the people, and see that those obligations are carried out faithfully and effectively.

At the same time, we also need to be aware that government, like every other power on earth, stands in rebellion against God and seeks to usurp the place of God. So another reason to seek out what God enjoins as the mandate of earthly authority is to show the extent to which an earthly government falls short of that and acts contrary to God's will.

this is so foreign a concept to the bible which teaches reaping and sowing as well as personal responsibility and not to mention HE WHO DOES NOT WORK DOES NOT EAT how does that fit into your socialist redistributive government

Actually, that is very much a part of a socialist model of government. People always remember the "to each according to their need" aspect and forget the "from each according to their ability" aspect. But both are necessary. And although the phrases have become associated with socialism, they actually originate in scripture. Manna was distributed to each according to their need, and no one, by working more, was allowed to take more. Contributions to the building of the tabernacle were made each according to his ability, a principle Paul also applied to contributions taken up in the churches for the poor in Jerusalem. In this Paul is also following the pattern of the first church in Jerusalem, where all who had any wealth contributed according to their ability and all who needed to be fed received according to their need. And so, as God long ago promised in the Law "there was no one in need among them."


In scripture, it is not earning wealth or having wealth that is condemned, but the refusal to share wealth equitably, and above all, making oneself rich by depriving others of their means of livelihood. Wealth is not a social sin, but allowing poverty is and creating poverty even more so.

while robbing any and all chances for charity and compassion and mercy for people to give to the poor or bless them to forfeit there right to act as the spirit guides them by just giving it all to the government

Very few people give to government; government collects taxes and it would be a most unjust government who took everything a person has in taxes. So, you can't palm off individual responsibility for charity just because you have a government.

But making the poor dependent on your personal charity is worse than providing for them through taxes.

What you are asking is the right of an autocratic benefactor to pick and choose who will benefit from your largesse and on what terms. Philanthropy can be a great blessing, but all too often it is a matter of pride and arrogance on the part of the philanthropist. It necessarily means dancing to the tune of the piper to get what is offered (which may or may not be what one needs).


What scripture sets out is provision for the rights of the poor to be honoured in a lawful way that applies to all, not in terms dictated personally, but under the law. And not as a gift, but as what is due to the poor.

All landowners, for example, are to permit gleaning. It is not a personal choice whether one will or will not. And all in need are to be permitted to glean, not just the favorites of the landowner. Gleaning, in other words, was not a charitable gift to the poor, but a right of the poor and an obligation of the landowner. The landowner who did not permit gleaning was not simply being stingy; he was depriving the poor of their legal right.

In the same way, the members of the early church did not personally decide how their largesse was to be distributed, but gave it into the hands of the apostles to distribute fairly. And when a question of fairness arose, the apostles immediately acted to be sure the distribution of food was fair. So no one had to depend on one person's whim as to whether provision was offered.

Taken to a larger social context, taxation remains the fairest way to fund the distribution of resources to those in need. A welfare cheque may not provide much income, but it is regular and reliable as charity is not. And it does not obligate a person to a particular benefactor nor allow a benefactor to boast of his generosity.

and then being done with it while at the same time not allowing the perfectly capable of having the glorious opportunity to feel hunger and allowing them the chance to to realize, you know what I kind of like eating food I think I should probably get a job so I can do some more of that, there is nothing biblical about propping up the sluggard or the lazy and blessing their sloth

More poor-bashing. The loose equation of poverty with laziness has no backing in fact or in scripture. Sure, a few wealthy people may end up in poverty because they wasted their means like the Prodigal Son. But most people living in poverty already have jobs--some of them even have two or three jobs. You can get that verified through any good set of employment and/or welfare statistics.

And most people without jobs are not able to get them because there are no jobs to be had. That is especially true globally: when unemployment levels are running at 30-50% of the population, as it does in many poor countries, it is not because that many people are lazy.

this is a perverse twisting of the scripture and as history can attest in even the pinnacle of socialist utopia's that is the scandinavian countries socialism breeds to a worsening degree through multiple genrations a superior sense of entitlement.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a sense of entitlement to what is yours by right.

Who said anything about loosing your soul because we worked hard and God blesses us,

Jesus.

God's blessing, it is affirmed again and again in scripture, is on those who do God's will. It doesn't matter how hard you work or how successful you are, if you are not using that wealth as God dictates you are not blessed by God no matter how rich you are.


As I said, earning and having wealth is no sin; but failing to deal with poverty is. And dealing with poverty takes more than personal charity. One even needs to be a bit leery of personal charity because it is such a temptation of pride and oppression. It can easily divide giver and receiver such that the gift is given with contempt, and so is no longer an expression of God's love as it ought to be. (As in the poor-bashing you are prone to.)

. . . God blessing his people like Solomon and Job

A good contrast. Both were blessed with wealth, and Solomon with power and authority as well. But while Job relieved the poor with his wealth, Solomon increased poverty in the nation and oppressed the people to the point the people rebelled twice during his lifetime and a third time against his son. Scripture says of the first two rebel leaders that they were adversaries raised up by God and it was God's prophet who commissioned Jereboam's revolt.

As Solomon was the government of the time, the actions he took which increased his wealth at the expense of the poor of the nation, for whose welfare he was responsible, were particularly reprehensible.

Also I notice you seem to be bending the scripture once again to fit into socialism because where the scripture states that there will be none in need among YOU does not seem to infer those outside of God's will but instead that is a promise to God's people, since it does qualify it by stating if you obey the Lord.

Of course it refers to those within God's will. And it spells out what God's will in terms of the poor is. So when we, as Christians, examine a government's policies, when we communicate with those in authority, when we choose representatives or vote on a referendum, these are the things we need to keep in mind. Of course we will never find a government which does all things according to God's will, but we can always hold up what God's will is and work toward compliance with that in all governmental affairs. When governments obey the will of God the nation will be blessed, and one sign of that blessing will be that there is no one in need. Where many are in need, and that need is continuing and worsening, that is a signal that government has been moving away from God's will. And Christians need to be on the alert to call governing authorities back to God's will.

I never qualified that all rich were righteous rich and all poor to be unrighteous poor.

You implied that all (or almost all) poor people make poor choices, are lazy, and have other repellent qualities. You lay the blame of poverty on the poor as if it were a sort of physical or mental weakness. This is simply not the case. Mentally, physically, morally, emotionally, poor and rich are all human with the same admixture of strengths and weaknesses. Poverty is a social phenomenon that people get caught up in, not something blameworthy in itself. And wealth is very seldom due simply to good hard work; it is not blameworthy either, but it is not a ground for praise or self-esteem either.

People are not entitled to rely on there government, sorry I cannot agree with you on the were the Germans entitled to rely on there's what about the Russians or how about America now am I supposed to be supportive of a government where the presidents pastor preaches G D America or where Jesus Christ's name cannot be spoken without fear of offending someone or where prayer is banned in schools?

Yes, people are entitled to rely on their government. That doesn't guarantee that the government is reliable though. Some governments fail very badly in carrying out their responsibilities. Some governments use power solely for the aggrandizement of those who rule and violate their obligations to those they rule.

So very often, on a pragmatic level, people cannot rely on their government. But they are certainly entitled to, and entitled, when a government is derelict, to change their government to one that will meet its responsibilities to its citizens.

One more thing to note that if anyone would try and use the United States as a comparison for capitalism it is flawed because Hong Kong is more Capitalist than America.

I don't doubt that.

 

[Rageprophet]

I realize now that there is no amount of reason that will sway this argument we could go back and forth until the second return and it would not make a diffrence.

But I will say this then I will be moving along to another forum that I found with people more like minded. I have seen first hand the effects of socialism the entitlements the social injustice it creates and over and over again I see people who get jobs not on merit but for the race they were born into I have gone to interviews where i was told not to waste my time because x of this race had to be hired and x females and sorry we have to many white males so good luck elsewhere but no matter how qualified or no matter how valuable an asset you would be it makes no difference, could you imagine if Pharoah told Joseph hey look I would like to put you in charge of everything but look I did not hire enough black women so I don't have any job openings for you. I guess I could understand if there were an environment where people would only hire white people because they were white but I have never been given greater opportunity because of my skin color but I have seen people of other races be handed jobs they should never have gotten simply because they showed up race x, I have seen people who trained for a job for 4 weeks in class as a precursor to getting hired and show up to late every single day and fail every test and still get the job because they had to hire that race, there is no way that can be justified how can you say this guy deserves a job or a chance or extra handouts because he is this race but this guy over here well he is white so he gets nothing what is that about? More often that not through multiple years and multiple jobs I have seen this repeat over and over and the vast majority of people who I have seen that have gotten jobs soley based on there race feel entitled because I have seen them do things no normal person would even attempt at work because they would be looking for a new job, I have seen these people hide work duck out call in sick have multiple fathers die for bereavment, and I have seen them grow more and more bold about it the more they get away with stuff. If I would see people get jobs because there were some injustice in hiring practices (which I have not seen except through discrimination on whites for being the majority) and those people would take that opportunity and do something with it that would be a diffrent story but I tell you know with almost 100% certainty I have not because the people that are minorities that have capitalized on opportunity at jobs would have been hired anyway because they would stand out as someone who is an asset and the people that get hired on through social justice are almost always left feeling entitled and are invariably prone to be mediocre at best employees most often than not being drags on the company. I have seen it with my own eyes and you cannot convince me there is anything biblical about this, I have seen great employees that are minorities and almost exclusively those people have gotten where they are through hard work and determination not through handouts, but without a doubt some of the most miserable employees I have seen have been hired to fill a quota, I have even seen whites that were equally as pathetic with a sense of entitlement as well by refusing to marry so they can continue to get social handouts from the govenrment, so all and all it creates parasites that no longer care to fend for themselves but who would rather be living in unrepentant sexual sin to continue to get there handout or lazy people who know that no matter how horribly they perform at work they cannot be fired in the current environment. I know this is one aspect of socialism but it pervades it though to the very core of what it is, I do apologize if this has a racial tone to it that was not my intent but a lot of the social justice socialist attitude comes from the belief that we are trying to help certain races or certain classes of people who supposedly somehow don't have the same opportunity that majority races like whites have by engineering a system that is exactly the opposite by not leveling the playing field but by making it harder for qualified whites to get a job simply because they showed up too white. This is what we face here with americas socialist society with affirmitive action and similar programs. I feel that instead of leveling the playing field for minorities it instead creates a group of people who instead rely on government to meet all there needs.
I hope i did not drift off topic but it seems to me that all this ties in.

One more thing I would like to point out is this, what are the fruits because ultimately besides what I see as creating a poorer overall community who are all suffering from a sense of entitlement (just look at greece when the government told them they had to take away some of there entitlements away, they lost it) that is one of the fruits I see but moreover which society is blessing more financially and spiritually?

Which society is sending out more missionaries which one is sending out more finances to aid in relief assistance in the midst of catastrophies?

I wager that those greedy little capitalists are forking out a lot more than the socialists.

 

[Biscuithands]

Jesus was a socialist. He healed the sick (provided healthcare), free-of-charge. He fed the hungry, free-of-charge. He gave advice, free-of-charge. He protected the poor, free-of-charge. And when he encountered rich capitalists, he invited them to give to the poor ... some refused ... some did not.

 

[Christ is Love]

No human system will ever be adequate. That said, I think Socialism has an unmitigated history of oppression and violence. In practice, Socialism tends to try to stamp out Christianity. Capitalism can be very bad as well, but I would choose Capitalism over Socialism any day of the week.

 

[gluadys]

No human system will ever be adequate. That said, I think Socialism has an unmitigated history of oppression and violence. In practice, Socialism tends to try to stamp out Christianity. Capitalism can be very bad as well, but I would choose Capitalism over Socialism any day of the week.

In one sense the question is badly worded. Capitalism, as much as socialism, has an unmitigated history of oppression and violence. In the West, we are less aware of this because we are the beneficiaries of oppression and violence committed elsewhere to sustain our capitalist system. Though now that it is hitting what used to be middle America, it is becoming evident here as well, that the 99% are oppressed to sustain the power and wealth of the 1%.

What is common to both oppressive capitalism and oppressive socialism is a fundamental lack of democracy. Capitalism is oppressive when the monied interests effectively own the legislature (Congress, Parliament) and govern in their self-interest. Socialism is oppressive when a self-appointed "vanguard" runs the show in its own interest.

So what I support first and foremost is genuine democracy. I support regulations which prevent non-persons (i.e. corporations, unions) influencing the outcome of elections whether by campaign contributions or advertising. I support limits on how much any one individual may contribute to a campaign. I support proportional representation so that a legislature will reflect how people actually vote.

Anything that strengthens the voice of the people over the almighty dollar, and over elite leadership structures is fundamental to good government. I happen to think that, given a choice, people will tend to choose socialist solutions economically, but I am willing to abide by the judgment of the people so long as I know they really have a voice.

 

[Christ is Love]

I doubt that people, if given a choice, would willingly choose Socialist policies. Socialism tends to come into existence through force, and tends to be maintained through violence and tyranny. The USSR, Cuba, China... really all the same, although China has actually gotten freer now that they've adopted Capitalist principles. Capitalism may have bad effects, but if we were living in a Socialist system, all those Occupy Wall Street protesters would be in a gulag somewhere right now. That's what I like about Capitalism (at least, American Capitalism); even if you don't like it, you won't be executed for protesting it.

With that said, I personally do not like the idea of a democracy at all. I prefer a democratic Republic, like we have in the US, except with strong limitations on its power. True democracies tend to turn into "mob rule."

I think that generally, the government's role is to protect people from force or fraud and provide for some common services, but for the most part, people should be allowed to live their lives in freedom.

Edit:

I have one more thing to add - a Capitalist system can tolerate a Socialist system with in it, but not the other way around.

For example, if a town full of Socialists decide to form a contract stating that everyone has shared ownership of all property within that town, they can have their Socialist society and everyone else can have their Capitalist society and all interests will be satisfied. But you can't have a Capitalist society within a Socialist society, because Socialism relies on totalitarian control.

Just like Joseph Stalin said, "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"

 

[gluadys]

I doubt that people, if given a choice, would willingly choose Socialist policies.

People all over the world have freely chosen socialist policies. And have protested mightily when there is a threat to socialist policies freely chosen. Ask Canadians or Europeans (or for that matter, China) about giving up universal health care and they will look at you as if you are stark raving mad.

I think you are committing the error of contrasting an ideal of capitalism with the reality of a dictatorship flying the flag of socialism. But dictatorship can fly the flag of capitalism too: Chile under Pinochet (who overthrew a democratically elected socialist government, ending 100 years of democracy in Chile), the Philippines under Marcos, Saudi Arabia today.

The proper thing to do is to contrast ideal with ideal, dictator-supported "socialism" with dictator-supported "capitalism" and democratic socialism (e.g. Iceland) with democratic capitalism.

I don't think there is a great deal of difference between democratic socialism and democratic capitalism. Nor is there a great deal of difference between dictator-supported socialism and dictator-supported capitalism.

The real difference is between democracy and dictatorship.

What is wrong with North America today is mostly a deficit in democracy. We are ruled by CEO's and financial institutions and no longer have a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

 

[Christ is Love]

I think that the only policies that can be rightfully called "Socialist" are those that are fundamental to Socialism. So state-owned means of production would be a Socialist policy, while Universal Health Care may not be justifiably called such. I might call it bad for a variety of reasons, but I wouldn't call it a Socialist policy because it doesn't shift the means of production to the state.

All the countries that have been truly Socialist have enforced that through brutality, because it requires all people to essentially be slaves to the State. A truly Socialist country can't handle that. Overall, Capitalist countries are far better at bringing about freedom than Socialist countries.

 

[gluadys]

I think that the only policies that can be rightfully called "Socialist" are those that are fundamental to Socialism. So state-owned means of production would be a Socialist policy, while Universal Health Care may not be justifiably called such.

Well, then you need to learn more about socialism. State-owned means of production are not fundamental to socialism. A worker-owned co-op is much closer to socialist ideals than state-owned production.

State-owned production may have a place provided the state is democratic, but local community owned enterprises which are easier to keep under democratic control would be even better.

Don't measure socialism by the leaders who betrayed it in the Soviet Union. Any more than you would measure capitalism by leaders who used it for self-aggrandizement at the expense of the common people.

All the countries that have been truly Socialist have enforced that through brutality, because it requires all people to essentially be slaves to the State. A truly Socialist country can't handle that. Overall, Capitalist countries are far better at bringing about freedom than Socialist countries.

Now you are cherry-picking evidence and only counting as "truly" socialist regimes that practiced brutality. Naturally such cherry-picked evidence supports your prejudices. How be we let people themselves decide whether their country is socialist or not, or endorses socialist policies or not.

Many Americans (most of those on the right) definitely consider Universal Health Care as practiced in Canada, the UK, Australia, most of Europe (including former East Block nations), and a good many other countries to be a socialist policy. As a Canadian I would agree. We got universal health care through the dedicated determination of one of our greatest socialist politicians, T.C. Douglas. Several of our western provinces also provide universal auto insurance through the government as well. Those were all put in place when socialist governments were in power provincially. We almost got it in Ontario (people DO like socialist policies of this sort) but were stymied by the recently-signed Free Trade Agreement which have tied up the government in expensive court cases for decades as American insurance companies sued for loss of expected profits.

And speaking of freedom, most Canadians would consider that having the freedom to consult a doctor and get recommended surgery or other treatment without fear of bankruptcy is a very valuable freedom. Worth paying the taxes to support the program.

 

[Christ is Love]

Well, then you need to learn more about socialism. State-owned means of production are not fundamental to socialism. A worker-owned co-op is much closer to socialist ideals than state-owned production.

State-owned production may have a place provided the state is democratic, but local community owned enterprises which are easier to keep under democratic control would be even better.

Don't measure socialism by the leaders who betrayed it in the Soviet Union. Any more than you would measure capitalism by leaders who used it for self-aggrandizement at the expense of the common people.

State is used loosely; the thrust of the matter is that the means of production are commonly owned within a group, whether that be a state or a co-op.

Now you are cherry-picking evidence and only counting as "truly" socialist regimes that practiced brutality. Naturally such cherry-picked evidence supports your prejudices. How be we let people themselves decide whether their country is socialist or not, or endorses socialist policies or not.

Many Americans (most of those on the right) definitely consider Universal Health Care as practiced in Canada, the UK, Australia, most of Europe (including former East Block nations), and a good many other countries to be a socialist policy. As a Canadian I would agree. We got universal health care through the dedicated determination of one of our greatest socialist politicians, T.C. Douglas. Several of our western provinces also provide universal auto insurance through the government as well. Those were all put in place when socialist governments were in power provincially. We almost got it in Ontario (people DO like socialist policies of this sort) but were stymied by the recently-signed Free Trade Agreement which have tied up the government in expensive court cases for decades as American insurance companies sued for loss of expected profits.

And speaking of freedom, most Canadians would consider that having the freedom to consult a doctor and get recommended surgery or other treatment without fear of bankruptcy is a very valuable freedom. Worth paying the taxes to support the program.

As I said earlier in this post, I could only call a policy "socialist" if it moved the means of production out of the hands of private individuals and into the collective. Universal health care does not do that, so I can't call it socialist. Socialism has an objective definition; it doesn't matter if people believe that something is socialist if it really isn't. That's like saying that if a group of people decide that the sky is actually brown instead of blue, it is so.

Also, you seem to be conflating rights and freedoms. The ability to see a doctor for free under a universal health care system is not a freedom, that's a right. A right corresponds to a duty; if you have a right to vote, for example, that creates a duty on the part of the state to give you a vote. If you have a freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, that means that a police officer must pass you by if they don't have probable cause or a warrant for a search.

That being said, the Canadian health care system doesn't work for everyone. I was just reading an article, actually, about how Canadians can pay up to 48% of their income but it can take up to three years for a surgery. (In this case, a torn knee ligament: OUCH! I don't have enough posts to post a link, but it was on CBS news.) With whatever money they have left over from paying these exorbitant taxes, they can choose to go to the US or a private clinic in Canada, but at that point a lot of their money is tossed down the drain. I personally would not want to live under that kind of system.

 

[gluadys]

State is used loosely; the thrust of the matter is that the means of production are commonly owned within a group, whether that be a state or a co-op.

A co-op though is not the government. A state is. People are members of a co-op voluntarily. They are not subjects of a state voluntarily.

Universal health care does not do that, so I can't call it socialist.

Actually, universal health care does, as the government becomes the sole purchaser of health care. (Same with public auto insurance) Even if a doctor's business in private, he has, in effect, only one paying customer: the government.

Socialism has an objective definition; it doesn't matter if people believe that something is socialist if it really isn't.

Indeed it does have an objective definition, and that is why I would call universal health care a socialist policy.

Also, you seem to be conflating rights and freedoms. The ability to see a doctor for free under a universal health care system is not a freedom, that's a right.

Having the right gives me the freedom.

A right corresponds to a duty; if you have a right to vote, for example, that creates a duty on the part of the state to give you a vote.

And having the right to health care creates a duty on the part of the state to provide it and gives me the freedom to have access to it. It also confers a duty on me to pay an appropriate share of taxes to sustain the right of access to health care for everyone in the community.

Can you think of any right that does not confer a freedom on someone as well as a duty on the part of the authorities and the taxpayers? Rights, duties and freedoms are a package deal.

If you have a freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, that means that a police officer must pass you by if they don't have probable cause or a warrant for a search.

That is a pretty narrow definition of freedom. Freedom from oppression doesn't mean only the freedom from inappropriate use of official force; it also means freedom from the oppression of want, ignorance, discrimination and anything else that stands in the way of developing the full potential of each human being.

That being said, the Canadian health care system doesn't work for everyone. I was just reading an article, actually, about how Canadians can pay up to 48% of their income but it can take up to three years for a surgery.

Well, you are conflating several very different things here. One is income tax. An effective tax rate of 48% applies only to the small minority of the very rich (and that is a significant reduction from the 70% is used to be--we've been cutting taxes on the rich as well.) Anyone who is paying 48% income tax can well afford it. And probably a lot more.

Of course, income tax is not the only tax, but even with sales taxes, not many people earning average incomes would be paying anywhere near that amount in taxes.

I pay 17% federally and 6% provincially on taxable income and in my province sales tax is 13%. Neither of course applies to my whole income. Nor to all my purchases. Food for example, has no sales tax on it. And rent is exempt from income tax. Further I get rebates from both levels of government on sales tax and from the province on shelter costs. Health care is funded provincially, so that comes from the 6% on my income and half the the sales tax. And health care is only one part of the provincial budget, so all told I figure I am probably paying not more than 6% of my income for the privilege of seeing a doctor or getting treated in a clinic or hospital free of out-of-pocket expenses.

Waiting lists are sometimes problematical. But they are less a problem of the system than of efficiency and/or adequate funding. The province targetted waiting times in emergency rooms a few years back and those were brought down significantly. Also some surgical procedures are more readily available now than they used to be. I was scheduled for surgery within 3 weeks of diagnosis. But some procedures can still meet with long delays. Perhaps treatment for knee ligaments is one of them.


And yes, anyone who is paying 48% income tax can also easily afford to go get treated elsewhere---and still have the province foot the bill up to what would be payable at home. Bet you didn't know about that part. Did the CBS report mention it?

So all they are really out is a plane ticket.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I voted Other because it's not really accurate. Most governments that fit within the model did/do not run off purely capitalistic/socialist economies.

 

[James Clarkston]

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.

Socialism, controlled by the state, is a product of un-Godly Babylon and as such it is not scriptural and is not God's will...as this is not taught in God's Word.

Now, having said that, in the Bible we do see that the GOD'S PEOPLE (not, un-Godly government that rejects God) is supposed to be taking care of the poor.

You have to realize that government is the arm of the flesh, it is controlled by carnal men, and as such is ultimately controlled by satan.

If you don't see this now... one day in the not too distant future you will.