Socialism vs. Capitalism

[jpcedotal]

I am not sure there is much morality found in either one.

 

[Leap]

I'm not sure what you mean by a 'stable' society but I am all for changing societies that have institutionalized injustice and where government has expanded beyond God's purposes for it.

I am wedded to the liberty that God would have men enjoy and there is NOTHING in capitalism that fundamentally leads to avarice or sin. I think you are so wedded to the notion that capitalism is based on greed that no amount of discussion will dissuade you. If anything, the 'problem' with capitalism is that it is such a powerful engine for the creation of wealth that men not fortified by God's Holy Spirit and word may be at a loss at what to do with such wealth and that they will use it for un-Godly purposes such as catering to the lusts of the flesh. The problem you decry (material benefits which came at social and spiritual costs) is not with capitalism but with man's separation from God and certainly in the United States, our society started coming undone when the Supreme Court decided to ban the teaching of God's word and wisdom in public schools although God favors such teaching and our Constitution protects it.

Capitalism is profit motive. Profit motive is:
* avarice (by wanting "more", rather than "enough" and being custodian of what already is), and
* socially destabilising (because its nature is never satisfied, but instead promotes everyone to reach for more)

Simple as that.

Socialism recognises the error of capitalism, avarice, and replaces it with meeting need. The problem with socialism is that it does this by a mechanistic centralisation that denies the personal and the family.

The alternative that we need takes the best from capitalism (the person and the family) and the best from socialism (make for need not profit). The closest system to that is Distributism, and the fact that you quote Chesterton but know nothing of Distributism is quite bizarre.

I doubt that we will agree on this, as I have seen no coherent counter point raised.

 

[jpcedotal]

Should there be a "must work if able" law be implemented in this perfect socialistic economy?

The main problem that I have with socialism is that in the end everyone will have to be forced to work because there will be no value to work.

If I can sit on my behind and live as well as someone working 40-60 hours a week because I know he will have to give me the extra he makes to keep us even and "fair"...guess what I am going to do...quit working.

That is what is going on in this country now. There is ZERO reason going out and getting a minimum wage job...u will be more poor than someone drawing a check...so why work? I don't fault the people, I fault the powers that be.

 

[BondiHarry]

I am not sure there is much morality found in either one.

Capitalism is by far the more moral system as it embraces man's liberty and eschews the initiation of the use of force or fraud (these are crimes). It is a system of traders rather than the system of looters which socialism and all other statists systems embody.

Capitalism is profit motive. Profit motive is:
* avarice (by wanting "more", rather than "enough" and being custodian of what already is), and
* socially destabilising (because its nature is never satisfied, but instead promotes everyone to reach for more)

You're using a straw man argument Leap. Profit does not equate to avarice (your own bizarre definition not withstanding) and there are societies that should be destabilized as they have institutionalized injustice and the oppression of the people. I'm not sure what you think is 'enough' or what you propose to do if other people have in your estimation more than 'enough' ... do you plead with them to meet only their 'needs' rather than all their 'wants' or do you take stronger action and confiscate their excess for redistribution?

Socialism recognises the error of capitalism, avarice, and replaces it with meeting need. The problem with socialism is that it does this by a mechanistic centralisation that denies the personal and the family.

How altruistic of socialism Actually, the truth is socialism is a system of institutionalized theft and of oppression where some men place duties and financial obligations on other men without their consent. Leap, what you do with the wealth that God blesses you with is up to you but NO MAN has the RIGHT to the wealth or labor of their fellow man (and again, the charity that Jesus preached is a different issue from state redistribution of wealth). Socialism is a system of wealth redistribution that is abhorrent to God as it embraces the false balance.

The alternative that we need takes the best from capitalism (the person and the family) and the best from socialism (make for need not profit). The closest system to that is Distributism,

And if other men disagree with you what then, do you COMPEL them to do things your way?

and the fact that you quote Chesterton but know nothing of Distributism is quite bizarre.

It's not so bizarre. The quote I use from Chesterton is quite accurate (and I came across it in an e-mail from a liberty based web site), my use of it does not require the I research him to discover the particulars of his beliefs.

 

[Leap]

You're using a straw man argument Leap. Profit does not equate to avarice (your own bizarre definition not withstanding) and there are societies that should be destabilized as they have institutionalized injustice and the oppression of the people. I'm not sure what you think is 'enough' or what you propose to do if other people have in your estimation more than 'enough' ... do you plead with them to meet only their 'needs' rather than all their 'wants' or do you take stronger action and confiscate their excess for redistribution?

Profit motive is avarice, by definition, because it wants "more" regardless of what is currently held.

How altruistic of socialism Actually, the truth is socialism is a system of institutionalized theft and of oppression where some men place duties and financial obligations on other men without their consent. Leap, what you do with the wealth that God blesses you with is up to you but NO MAN has the RIGHT to the wealth or labor of their fellow man (and again, the charity that Jesus preached is a different issue from state redistribution of wealth). Socialism is a system of wealth redistribution that is abhorrent to God as it embraces the false balance.

Capitalism is wrong to encourage avarice.
Socialism is wrong to encourage theft.
BOTH are sinful.
Not all requirements on the wealth that we create are theft though.

And if other men disagree with you what then, do you COMPEL them to do things your way?

If need be, yes. Order is necessary for society, and if people put profit over need then order is destroyed. That is why we have a criminal justice system and traffic laws.

It's not so bizarre. The quote I use from Chesterton is quite accurate (and I came across it in an e-mail from a liberty based web site), my use of it does not require the I research him to discover the particulars of his beliefs.

Quoting a man you know little about is a little superficial.

 

[BondiHarry]

Profit motive is avarice, by definition, because it wants "more" regardless of what is currently held.

Apparently so in your world, not in mine. If I have a peach tree it may provide for my peach needs. However, if I plant 50 more peach trees I will have far more than I need and I can sell the excess to those who don't have peach trees but desire peaches. Pretending that benefit and profit are different things is silly.

Capitalism is wrong to encourage avarice

It doesn't ... carnality encourages avarice; one can be a man of God and a capitalist and will use their profit as God directs. Before we can do big things like build hospitals, dams or bridges the wealth for these things must first exist ... capitalism CREATES wealth!

Socialism is wrong to encourage theft.

A point we agree on.

BOTH are sinful.

False. Socialism is sinful (as a government institution, the socialism of like minded people voluntarily pooling their money together for an agreed purpose is fine) but capitalism is simply people being free to pursue their dreams without undue interference from others.

Not all requirements on the wealth that we create are theft though.

Please explain your point here. Forcibly taking money from someone who is not indebted to you is THEFT, taking that money by government proxy does not change the nature of the act.

If need be, yes. Order is necessary for society, and if people put profit over need then order is destroyed. That is why we have a criminal justice system and traffic laws.

You seem to operate under the theory that 'order' should not be changed since it 'destabilizes' society but what if the existing order is unjust, cruel or wicked? It would be our moral duty to change that society, NOT to ensure its continued existence.

Quoting a man you know little about is a little superficial.

People quote the Bible all the time to undermine the will of God (do not judge, caring for the poor justifies theft by government proxy, render unto Caesar what is Caesars, husbands being tyrants to their wives ... they know the bit about wives submit yourselves to your own husbands but they tend to forget the duty of the husband to the wife and so forth).

I find attributing avarice to capitalism to be more than a little superficial. Avarice is a trait of some men, not of the economic system based on liberty and free trade. To profit under capitalism one must provide goods or services that consumers want to buy (granted there are consumers who desire trash but there are always those who will seek to provide the booze, drugs, pornography or sex they crave ... this is hardly unique to capitalism) and if anything is to be condemned it is the immorality of the consumer that should be condemned.

Unfortunately society sometimes embraces some foolish rules (yet you embrace preserving the societal existing order) so in America we see laws that prohibit for example Christian inn owners from 'discriminating' against patrons so if a gay couple shows up on their 'honeymoon' or two randy teens show up on prom night so they can fornicate their little brains out, the Christian owners cannot refuse them a room (thus facilitating sin that God hates).

 

[Leap]

Apparently so in your world, not in mine. If I have a peach tree it may provide for my peach needs. However, if I plant 50 more peach trees I will have far more than I need and I can sell the excess to those who don't have peach trees but desire peaches. Pretending that benefit and profit are different things is silly.

Then you need to go away and read up on the profit motive and its relation to capitalism.

It doesn't ... carnality encourages avarice; one can be a man of God and a capitalist and will use their profit as God directs. Before we can do big things like build hospitals, dams or bridges the wealth for these things must first exist ... capitalism CREATES wealth!

Yes, yes, I know....
Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good" Speech - YouTube
Greed, avarice, is the value that built the Tower of Babel. It takes a position of "user" rather than "custodian" of this world, as if it (and we) can be saved by our efforts. Sorry, no, capitalism is avaricious by nature. Its desire is for "more"; not for "enough" and not for "what has been entrusted to us".

Please explain your point here. Forcibly taking money from someone who is not indebted to you is THEFT, taking that money by government proxy does not change the nature of the act.

A society requires dutiful behaviour. Part of that duty can be to supply resources to support that society. There is nothing of "theft" about that requirement anymore than a society requiring a certain behaviour of you is criminal.

The difference here is that capitalism (and, I suspect, you yourself) is individualistic. Putting the individual before the collective (which no does not mean "communism", despite decades of 2nd rate education and media churning out the idea that they are synonymous). Thus capitalists rally against taxation as somehow inherently theft, when it is not.

You seem to operate under the theory that 'order' should not be changed since it 'destabilizes' society but what if the existing order is unjust, cruel or wicked? It would be our moral duty to change that society, NOT to ensure its continued existence.

Organic growth happens slowly. Demolition and mutation happen quickly. The lesson is quite obvious for us. Capitalism wants as much "growth" as quickly as possible. Its very point is "growth", change. That is why is has destroyed so many communities.

A society is best when it is stable. Where its nature is inherited rather than constantly changed. The market is no respecter of conservative values. It constantly destroys them because its nature is to progress rather than to conserve.

Unfortunately society sometimes embraces some foolish rules (yet you embrace preserving the societal existing order) so in America we see laws that prohibit for example Christian inn owners from 'discriminating' against patrons so if a gay couple shows up on their 'honeymoon' or two randy teens show up on prom night so they can fornicate their little brains out, the Christian owners cannot refuse them a room (thus facilitating sin that God hates).

Embracing laws that have no roots is foolish. It is not tradition that leads to a sanctioning of homosexuality and promiscuity, it is an attack on tradition that does so.

 

[Voluntary Joe]

Which do you think is better? Which is moral? Do you believe that Christ supports one or the other?

I am a Christian Socialist, so I believe in socialism. I see capitalism as cruel and unjust. I also believe that the Bible supports socialism.

Can you define justice? From my understanding justice is each getting what they have earned. Is taking from those who earn and giving to those who have not justice? Is each earning their own keep justice? Is someone who earned more than someone else unjust for earning more?

2 Thessalonians 3:10 says "For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either."

In Romans and in both Corinthians Paul is taking up collections for the poor, and destitute Christians. I wonder how they got so poor? I have a guess, but I'm sure you know too.

One last thing, the difference between Christianity and socialism is that in socialism you are threatened in order to "give" to the poor. Where I come from that is called extortion and theft and coercion. In socialism wealth redistribution happens in which money is taken from your paycheck or you are ordered to send in money. If you don't recognize their right to force you to pay, armed men in costume will come to bring you to a cage, if you try to defend yourself from this kidnapping you are shot.

Christianity is voluntary, its all about voluntarily giving of yourself, choosing to give to others because you want to, because you care about others and about God. Being forced to give with a gun to your head is not giving. God says to be a cheerful giver, how can you be a cheerful giver with a gun to your head? That is why Christian generosity is always and absolutely voluntary. Socialism is in no way shape or form voluntary.

 

[BondiHarry]

Then you need to go away and read up on the profit motive and its relation to capitalism.

Then silly it is I guess.

Yes, yes, I know....
Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good" Speech - YouTube
Greed, avarice, is the value that built the Tower of Babel. It takes a position of "user" rather than "custodian" of this world, as if it (and we) can be saved by our efforts. Sorry, no, capitalism is avaricious by nature. Its desire is for "more"; not for "enough" and not for "what has been entrusted to us".

Creating wealth is NOT greed. Greed comes into play on how wealth is used. Frankly, some of the greediest people going are not rich, they are the envious poor who do not apply themselves (to PROFIT themselves) but instead think they are owed a living by the simple act of being born, who think they have a 'right' to an education, health care, a minimum wage or living wage ... all to be provided or paid for by someone else.

Leap, I suggest you review what God means by loving our neighbor like ourselves. This means we do not covet or steal their property, we do not oppress them and we fight for justice for all ... the rich do not lose their claim to justice simply because they have prospered.

A society requires dutiful behaviour.

'Duty' as defined by whom? YOU? A Hitler, Stalin or Vlad Tepes? Or perhaps duty as defined by God?

Part of that duty can be to supply resources to support that society

Your claim here seems to conflict with God telling us to use fair balances, to not covet or steal, that he who does not work, neither shall he eat. Actually, our 'duty' to society is to work to sustain our own lives, to not initiate the use of force or fraud against our fellow man ... our duty does not include doing for others what they refuse to do for themselves.

There is nothing of "theft" about that requirement anymore than a society requiring a certain behaviour of you is criminal.

Stealing is forcibly taking the property of another that you have no moral claim to ... taking such property by government proxy does not change the nature of the act. Frankly Leap, you have some major problems with your theology. God NEVER tells us to look to government or society for the things we need, He tells us just the opposite "put NOT your trust in princes (ie government), nor in the son of man in whom there is no help"! What He does tell us is "seek first the kingdom of God, AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS" and THEN all the things we need will be added to us. It is idolatry to look to government/society rather than God for the things we need.

The difference here is that capitalism (and, I suspect, you yourself) is individualistic. Putting the individual before the collective (which no does not mean "communism", despite decades of 2nd rate education and media churning out the idea that they are synonymous).

Jesus taught us that we are to "deny yourself, take up your cross daily AND FOLLOW ME", you are falling for Satan's perversion of this that makes denying ourselves the virtue (therefore you believe the individual should deny himself for the collective when that isn't what Jesus taught at all). I am not 'individualistic' ... I know that the carnal 'ME' is terrible about making wise and moral decisions and that I have to deny myself and surrender my imperfect will to Jesus' perfect will.

There is NOTHING about capitalism that precludes entrepeneurs being submitted to Christ. I frankly do not understand why you so vigorously fight against the liberty that God would bless men with.

Thus capitalists rally against taxation as somehow inherently theft, when it is not.

Taxation with the purpose of redistributing wealth IS THEFT! Denying that reality doesn't change its moral nature and no thief will inherit the kingdom of God ... something those who champion forcibly taking the bread of one man's labor to give to another man should pay close attention to.

Organic growth happens slowly. Demolition and mutation happen quickly. The lesson is quite obvious for us. Capitalism wants as much "growth" as quickly as possible. Its very point is "growth", change. That is why is has destroyed so many communities.

Actually, the opposite is true. Progress comes at its own pace when men treat their fellow man in a moral way. In capitalism, no big venture will come about unless the entrepeneur already has the wealth to proceed OR can convince investors to support his venture if he does not. It is under statist government with the confiscation of wealth from the private sector to be used as the power brokers who control the intrusive government desire that the rapid growth you're condemning occurs. When the individual is seen as a mere pawn to be used as the 'state' decrees, that is when communities are destroyed.

A society is best when it is stable. Where its nature is inherited rather than constantly changed. The market is no respecter of conservative values. It constantly destroys them because its nature is to progress rather than to conserve.

You keep ignoring that many societies are wicked, do more harm to the greater bulk of men than good, where oppression and torment of the individual is widespread ... are you seriously suggesting that such societies should be preserved? Such societies are fundamentally unstable because there will ALWAYS be a conflict between those men who seek to enslave their fellow man and those men who would rather live free than be a slave.

Embracing laws that have no roots is foolish. It is not tradition that leads to a sanctioning of homosexuality and promiscuity, it is an attack on tradition that does so.

Embracing laws that are rooted in foolishness is also foolish. May I remind you that Jesus condemned the traditions of the Pharisees which blinded them to the truth of scripture? Human traditions that war against the word of God should claim no loyalty from the man of God.

Leak, I suggest you do a serious investigation into what God tasks government with doing because YOU are adding a great deal more to the tasks of government than God ever willed.

 

[Leap]

Creating wealth is NOT greed.

Seeking "more" is.

'Duty' as defined by whom? YOU? A Hitler, Stalin or Vlad Tepes? Or perhaps duty as defined by God?

Defined by tradition. By the previous generations who are as much the owner of something as we are today and our grandchildren will be in the furture.

Your claim here seems to conflict with God telling us to use fair balances, to not covet or steal, that he who does not work, neither shall he eat. Actually, our 'duty' to society is to work to sustain our own lives, to not initiate the use of force or fraud against our fellow man ... our duty does not include doing for others what they refuse to do for themselves.

Are the widow and orphan expected to work for their food? Is the babe in arms or the sick or disabled expected to work for their food? In a large society, that needs full time courts, are we to expect the judges to work without pay when they are too busy to tend their fields and flocks? Please spare me the Randian individualist bile that would let the weak suffer and the strong rise on their backs.

You keep ignoring that many societies are wicked, do more harm to the greater bulk of men than good, where oppression and torment of the individual is widespread ... are you seriously suggesting that such societies should be preserved? Such societies are fundamentally unstable because there will ALWAYS be a conflict between those men who seek to enslave their fellow man and those men who would rather live free than be a slave.

I am ignoring no such thing. ALL societies have their problems, but a society that is unstable is itself a problem because it threatens its own existence. A stable society is built upon the principle of inherited custodianship, not procured acquisition. The latter calls men to leave where they are and strive for something different, inherently threatening the stability of society.

 

[BondiHarry]

Seeking "more" is.

Not according to God who promises to prosper us, who gives us the ability to produce wealth. Just what do you think the man of God who creates wealth far above what he consumes is going to do with the excess? He is going to use it to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and so forth. He won't be able to do that with folks like you forbidding him from creating wealth with God's blessings.

Defined by tradition. By the previous generations who are as much the owner of something as we are today and our grandchildren will be in the furture.

I care not a whit for 'tradition' which works against the word and will of God.

Are the widow and orphan expected to work for their food? Is the babe in arms or the sick or disabled expected to work for their food? In a large society, that needs full time courts, are we to expect the judges to work without pay when they are too busy to tend their fields and flocks? Please spare me the Randian individualist bile that would let the weak suffer and the strong rise on their backs.

I'm not referring to Ayn Rand, I'm referring to the word of God. Rand denied God and although she was quite accurate about the dangers of statism and the need for people to be free, she was dead wrong (irrationally wrong to boot) that man could exist without God the creator and that we could ignore Him and prosper.

Leap, you really need to come to grips with the reality that God does not give government the power you want to give it. The vast majority of people are not widows or orphans but able bodied enough to sustain themselves by the work that God calls for them to do. A man who does not take care of his family (wife, children, parents) is called worse than an infidel by God. We are called to be charitable and I am very curious where you think the extra wealth to care for an ever growing population is going to come from if we do not create wealth but merely deal with inherited wealth. It should be OBVIOUS that finite wealth that might care for 300 million adequately is completely inadequate to care for 3 billion people let alone the over 6 billion people the world has now.

I am ignoring no such thing. ALL societies have their problems, but a society that is unstable is itself a problem because it threatens its own existence. A stable society is built upon the principle of inherited custodianship, not procured acquisition. The latter calls men to leave where they are and strive for something different, inherently threatening the stability of society.

How many human societies today are fully committed to God? The answer is NONE! How do you expect a society to be stable when it is in rebellion against God? God does not call for us to preserve wicked societies ... instead He says this: "If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land" ... this is a FAR CRY from what you are championing. We are to be a light to a world in darkness, we are not to embrace that darkness.

 

[Leap]

Not according to God who promises to prosper us, who gives us the ability to produce wealth. Just what do you think the man of God who creates wealth far above what he consumes is going to do with the excess? He is going to use it to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and so forth. He won't be able to do that with folks like you forbidding him from creating wealth with God's blessings.

We prosper as God chooses, not as we desire.

I'm not referring to Ayn Rand, I'm referring to the word of God. Rand denied God and although she was quite accurate about the dangers of statism and the need for people to be free, she was dead wrong (irrationally wrong to boot) that man could exist without God the creator and that we could ignore Him and prosper.

Rand spouted nonsense that capitalism and libertarians copy. God requires that we look after the widow and the orphan (and the sick and disabled), but your blanket application of "if you dont work, you dont eat" ignores that.

Leap, you really need to come to grips with the reality that God does not give government the power you want to give it. The vast majority of people are not widows or orphans but able bodied enough to sustain themselves by the work that God calls for them to do. A man who does not take care of his family (wife, children, parents) is called worse than an infidel by God. We are called to be charitable and I am very curious where you think the extra wealth to care for an ever growing population is going to come from if we do not create wealth but merely deal with inherited wealth. It should be OBVIOUS that finite wealth that might care for 300 million adequately is completely inadequate to care for 3 billion people let alone the over 6 billion people the world has now.

God gives men the power and govts are made up of men. I agree that charity is better than taxation, but I also see the majority of people who would give nothing if they could get away with it; hence taxation is needed.

How many human societies today are fully committed to God? The answer is NONE! How do you expect a society to be stable when it is in rebellion against God? God does not call for us to preserve wicked societies ... instead He says this: "If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land" ... this is a FAR CRY from what you are championing. We are to be a light to a world in darkness, we are not to embrace that darkness.

A capitalist society is in rebellion against God by being rooted in avarice and the same belief in their own power as the builders of babel had.

The question to capitalism is; how much is enough? The answer it gives is that no amount is ever enough, because you could always do more with more power (and power is what money is about at core, really). It is inherently acquisitive, and stands opposed to the role of custodian that God gives us. A role that recognises our limits; we are not the saviours of this world. We are called to give of what we have, not hubristically seek as much as possible to have and (allegedly) give of (as if somehow we are its saviours). The point is not what you achieve, but what you do with what you have. The point is not ends, as when you focus on that all manner of means become acceptable, but on the means itself. Any more than that and you make yourself saviour of this world...and that is blasphemy.

Capitalism focuses on the ends (as does socialism) and in doing so claims legitimacy for all manner of foul means. Custodianship focuses on means, with a limit that keeps our pride in check and remembers that it is not us who will save this world.

 

[BondiHarry]

We prosper as God chooses, not as we desire.

It is for God to decide with His children how that is accomplished, that isn't your call to meddle with..

Rand spouted nonsense that capitalism and libertarians copy.

Beyond her denial of God, what 'nonsense' did she spout about capitalism?

God requires that we look after the widow and the orphan (and the sick and disabled), but your blanket application of "if you dont work, you dont eat" ignores that.

I find it interesting that those of us who stand up against theft by government proxy are just assumed by folks like you that we're not charitable. And I remind you that it is God who said "he who does not work, neither shall he eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10) ... it is an affront to God for the able bodied to laze about yet that is exactly what many such do when they can just loot their fellow man with the assistance of government.

God gives men the power and govts are made up of men. I agree that charity is better than taxation, but I also see the majority of people who would give nothing if they could get away with it; hence taxation is needed.

Godly men do not follow the ways of the world. We do not steal, PERIOD. Believers will obey God, non-believers won't. It is not for us to force others to do what is right and I remind you that in 1 Peter 4:15 we are commanded not to be busybodys in other mens matters. They will answer to God for their disobedience ... just as any believer who forsakes God's wisdom for the wisdom of this world. You speak of 'tradition' yet God has this to say about man's 'traditions':

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ".

And your intent to compel others through taxation to do what you think is right conflicts yet again with what God tells us: "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver".

Jesus forced no man to follow or obey Him.

A capitalist society is in rebellion against God by being rooted in avarice and the same belief in their own power as the builders of babel had.

Capitalism is rooted in liberty not avarice. It is rooted in free trade and consumers deciding for themselves what they will buy or pass on. It is a lie to equate the desire to prosper and create wealth with avarice.

The question to capitalism is; how much is enough? The answer it gives is that no amount is ever enough, because you could always do more with more power (and power is what money is about at core, really). It is inherently acquisitive, and stands opposed to the role of custodian that God gives us. A role that recognises our limits; we are not the saviours of this world. We are called to give of what we have, not hubristically seek as much as possible to have and (allegedly) give of (as if somehow we are its saviours). The point is not what you achieve, but what you do with what you have. The point is not ends, as when you focus on that all manner of means become acceptable, but on the means itself. Any more than that and you make yourself saviour of this world...and that is blasphemy.

You still don't grasp the meaning of the parable of the talents. The servant who did as you call for was the one who was condemned. It was the servants who took what their Lord gave them and through TRADE increased his holdings who were praised.

Capitalism focuses on the ends (as does socialism) and in doing so claims legitimacy for all manner of foul means. Custodianship focuses on means, with a limit that keeps our pride in check and remembers that it is not us who will save this world.

YOU or any other man deciding for others what they should do, how much they can own, what they must give to support what YOU deem wise is the height of pride. I oppose the government run welfare/entitlement programs not only because they go against God's word but because they are invariably poorly thought out, inefficient and often even harm the very people the politicians claim they want to help. They are only a pretense of greedy men seeking control of wealth they had no hand in creating.

 

[jpcedotal]

In the end, in order for socialism to work, the government will have to force folks to work even to the point of choosing their jobs for them.

There are way too many lazy folks in the USA for socialism to ever work. Once the lazy see that the money is running out, that too many of the working class are quitting and they are having to share more, they will quickly turn back to supporting capitalism.

 

[gluadys]

You still don't grasp the meaning of the parable of the talents. The servant who did as you call for was the one who was condemned.

True, he was condemned by his avaricious master.

But he is the only one who adhered to the laws God gave to Moses.

He chose not to be wicked even though his master and his fellow-servants were. And he paid for it.


Was Jesus preparing his disciples for how the world would treat them?

Given the context of the parable, it would seem so.

In this respect it is much like the parable of the vineyard which describes how the world treats the godly.

 

[Leap]

Beyond her denial of God, what 'nonsense' did she spout about capitalism?

I did not say "about capitalism".

Capitalism is rooted in liberty not avarice. It is rooted in free trade and consumers deciding for themselves what they will buy or pass on. It is a lie to equate the desire to prosper and create wealth with avarice.

It is both.

You still don't grasp the meaning of the parable of the talents. The servant who did as you call for was the one who was condemned. It was the servants who took what their Lord gave them and through TRADE increased his holdings who were praised.

The money is a metaphor, not a literal example.

YOU or any other man deciding for others what they should do, how much they can own, what they must give to support what YOU deem wise is the height of pride.

My precious! - YouTube

Don't you know who you sound like?

God tells us time and time again to not seek riches, yet capitalism makes money into the holy spirit...as if it is money which can save the world.

 

[Leap]

A little light reading

Distributism Vs. Laissez-faire Capitalism

 

[gluadys]

Not according to God who promises to prosper us, who gives us the ability to produce wealth. Just what do you think the man of God who creates wealth far above what he consumes is going to do with the excess? He is going to use it to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and so forth. He won't be able to do that with folks like you forbidding him from creating wealth with God's blessings.

And he , like Job, will be blest.

But most wealth today is not in the hands of godly individuals. It is in the hands of godless and heartless corporations. And some godless and heartless individuals too.

Should Christians support a social order which allows their autonomous greed to run rampant? Even siphoning off most taxes to enrich themselves instead of to serve the people?

The vast majority of people are not widows or orphans

True. But the vast majority of the poor are. (70% by UN estimates.)
Many of the rest fall into the 3rd class of people designated as vulnerable to oppression in scripture: resident aliens--often people uprooted from their homes by war or expropriation of their lands. Many of these are prevented from taking legitimate work in the lands in which they take refuge by discriminatory laws.

A man who does not take care of his family (wife, children, parents) is called worse than an infidel by God.

Yes, and so are the rest of the people who would leave the innocents (the wife, the children, the parents) to rot in poverty because the man of the household is irresponsible.

Personally I would have no problem with a community feeding them and handing him the bill. But I have a huge problem with a community that lets them go hungry waiting for him to become responsible.

We are called to be charitable and I am very curious where you think the extra wealth to care for an ever growing population is going to come from if we do not create wealth but merely deal with inherited wealth.

An adequate income is actually one of the best correlates to a declining birth rate. People have many children when: a) they don't know how to control fertility, b) they need adult children to care for them in their old age and know that fewer than half their children will survive to their 5th birthday c) the men in their life do not permit women to choose when and how many children they will have.

Reverse those conditions and birth rates decline as they have been declining in all parts of the world for over a decade now. In some parts of the world (especially Eastern Europe) population is already in a negative growth cycle. Globally it will take a while yet to bring population growth rates to zero, but that is coming too. There is no inevitable constant upward population growth.

I am sure Leap would agree that a stable society is contingent on a stable population.

It should be OBVIOUS that finite wealth that might care for 300 million adequately is completely inadequate to care for 3 billion people let alone the over 6 billion people the world has now.

It should be equally obvious that in a finite world of finite resources no one can accumulate infinite wealth and that it is impossible for a handful of multi-billionaires to own close to half of all existing wealth without many people living in dire poverty. That is the current situation.

The only way for all to prosper is for wealth to be equitably (not necessarily equally) shared. We need to adhere to the manna principle: he who gathered much did not have too much and he who gathered little did not have too little.

 

[BondiHarry]

True, he was condemned by his avaricious master.

The master in this parable represented Jesus.

But he is the only one who adhered to the laws God gave to Moses.

NO, he was a disobedient servant (much like the Matthew 7 'Lord, Lord' crowd) who did no service for his lord, bore false witness towards him (he claimed his lord was "a hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed" when it is clear the lord not only gave his servants talents with which to work with but had already REWARDED the two servants who bore good fruit and doubled what their lord had given them). May I remind you that those who are faithful in little will be entrusted with much greater things, those who prove faithless in little will have what little was given them taken away.

He chose not to be wicked even though his master and his fellow-servants were. And he paid for it.

How is it the phrase weeping and gnashing of teeth refer to the wicked EXCEPT in this parable. God is not the author of confusion.

Are you suggesting that where we read that people will be thrown into outer darkness (or into the fire or furnace), and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, that it is the virtuous and obedient servants of the Lord that are being talked about?

Was Jesus preparing his disciples for how the world would treat them?

Given the context of the parable, it would seem so.

The context was the servants faithfulness to their lord. Not unlike today where so many professing Christians support abortion, theft by government proxy, gay marriage and so forth.

In this respect it is much like the parable of the vineyard which describes how the world treats the godly.

Which of the vineyard parables?

 

[gluadys]

The master in this parable represented Jesus.

Where does the gospel say that?

NO, he was a disobedient servant (much like the Matthew 7 'Lord, Lord' crowd) who did no service for his lord, bore false witness towards him (he claimed his lord was "a hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed"

It wasn't false witness. His master confirmed that this was a true description.

The context was the servants faithfulness to their lord.

Which lord? The Lord God of Israel who forbade taking interest or the lord who berates his servant for not at least taking interest from the bankers?

You cannot serve both God and mammon.

Which of the vineyard parables?

The one about the rebellious tenants--which the scribes and Pharisees rightly understood to refer to themselves.