CAN A CHRISTIAN BE LEFT-WING?

Pure capitalism does not work, and it is not biblical. Pure socialism does not work. It is the combination of capitalism with social responsibility that works, as evidenced in the UK and Canada; both founded by God-fearing men.

Certainly there are lazy louts who abuse the system, but then, when a president gives tax cuts and the most needy get a pittance whilst he gains $220,000.00, is that fair? I think not.

The churches can barely meet their own mission needs because Christians are not givers, let alone handle the social needs of society. Sorry, it has become a government concern and duty.

Cheers,

Jim

 

On the cat scan issue. People make mistakes and hospital staff are not exempted from that. Cat scans are readily available as a diagnostic tool. It is just that, a diagnostic tool. The attending physician can, by experience and attendance, usually determine the medical needs. When he/she has doubt instant cat scans may be employed. The fact is this; cat scans usually just confirm what has been suspected already by the attending physician. In surgery, a section is taken during the surgery and an attending pathologist examines the speciman and instantly returns his/her report to the attending surgeon. It is a confirmation. The surgeon is best able to see the offending organ in person whilst he/she has the internal organ exposed in place.

We can all tell horror stories from hospitals. My daughter is a pathologist in Florida..want to hear a few dozen stories?

Cheers,

Jim

 

The president has also earned his money. You deal with the pressures of being the Commander in Chief of a nation. It is again not the Government's job to provide. You are in Canada I'm in the U.S. By the US's constitution the job of the governement is protection not provision. There are things that must be regulated. It is a person's individual responsibility to provide and take care of the needy even if it doesn't get done. There are jobs out there for those who can work. Alexis de Toqueville said something along the lines of "The American republic will last as long as the congress doesn't bribe the people with the people's money". If people see the need they usually will act. If people do what they were suppose to do we wouldn't have a problem.

 

Acts 2:42-47:

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.
44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.
45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

That's not socialism?

 

No, it is not socialism.

 

Debby in Philly sez:

JGrayhound responds:

Amen JG!!

I never cease to be amazed that this is used as an argument for socialism. Please show one example of anyone in this scripture being FORCED to do what they did!! They gave because they WANTED to, not by command, threat, or pending punishment.

Read on in Acts 4,&5 about Ananias & Saphira, & they were punished, not because they didn't give all, but because they lied about it. they wanted the glory of "sacrifice" while not fulfiling the requirements thereof.

Never an example of Jesus FORCING anyone to be generous; only urging!!

 

The New Testament was written in the context of the Roman empire which was a welfare state avant la lettre. Nobody in the Bible complained about that, so apparently God doesn't mind.

 

Please excuse my denseness, mioque, but I have not the slightest idea what your point is re: the idea of Jesus/God endorsing socialism?

I personally don't think that God is overly concerned about what "type of gov't" a country has, as long as it's a "God fearing" gov't.

My whole point is that, while socialism may (?) take care of some people that would perhaps fall through the cracks, it is a system that MAKES me care for YOU(generic YOU) at My expense. Nowhere does the bible/Jesus/God mandate such.

Socialism says "You WILL give so others can be taken care of!" Jesus says "You SHOULD give---"
BIG difference!!!

 

"but I have not the slightest idea what your point is re: the idea of Jesus/God endorsing socialism?"
''
The point is that God is not opposed to that aspect of 'Socialism' that we know as government welfare. I wouldn't go so far to call it an endorsement.
Still the government of the Roman Empire had the by Jezus explicitly endorsed right to collect taxes. When the Roman government used part of those taxes for welfare purposes none of the New Testament writers complained about that.

 

Jim1999:
You are an absolutely amazing gentleman, and I really love reading your posts. I sincerely hope that this posts finds you and your family on the receiving end of God's Unlimited Grace and Love. [Additionally, I hope that your daughter in FL did not become a victim of a very large hurricane.]

The past ten months have seen an epiphany in my life, and as a result, I underwent a metamorphosis from a very-right-leaning Republican to a bleeding-heart liberal. Since my radical departure from the right, I have been seeing things differently, and have a new attitude with respect to many subjects. As I stated previously in the "Politics" forum, I am a Born-Again Theistic Communist (Rev. 21:1-4).

I think that Jim and Deb in Philly are proof that Christians can be left-wing (or even left-leaning).

BiR

 

What they had in Russia was Communism. Communism and Socialism are two completley different things although they may sound similar.

Capatalism is in no way a Biblical Concept. Capatalists on the top of the ladder do no work at all, but survive of the labour of people that they are abusing.

Take a Sneaker Company for example, the owners of it are shareholders that do no work for the company, yet demand that it make profits, The company sets up offshore in a third world country, paying people a pittance to toil long hours, have no health and safety regulations, have situations where a fire breaks out and everyone dies because the workers are locked in to stop theft.

We can pretend that this stuff does not happen but it certainley does, and this type of Captalism is not in anyway Scriptural. The Bible is crystal clear about how workers are to be treated. Pure Capatalism always puts profit before the welfare of its workers, and people that do that are in no way Christian.

Malachi 3:5 "And I will come near you for judgement; I will be a swift witness Against Sorcerers, Against Adulterers, Against Perjurers, Against those that Exploit Wage Earners",

 

It is immoral for anyone or any entity, including a government, to take a person's property(including money) by force and give it to another person.

 

"It is immoral for anyone or any entity, including a government, to take a person's property(including money) by force and give it to another person. "
''
It's called taxes.

 

That's correct. And taxes used for other than the proper functions of government - such as the military, the police, the judicial system and other items listed in the federal and State constitutions - are immoral expenditures of taxes.

For example, in the Arkansas constitution it states that children are to be given an adequate education. Therefore, taxes spent on education in Arkansas are not immoral. However, there is no such stipulation in the federal constitution. Therefore, federal taxes spend on education are immoral.

 

KenH
So if it's in a country's constitution it is o.k., if not it is immoral?
Socialism has just become the moral thing to do in the Netherlands.

"Art. 19 . - 1. Bevordering van voldoende werkgelegenheid is voorwerp van zorg der overheid.
- 2. De wet stelt regels omtrent de rechtspositie van hen die arbeid verrichten en omtrent hun bescherming daarbij, alsmede omtrent medezeggenschap.
- 3. Het recht van iedere Nederlander op vrije keuze van arbeid wordt erkend, behoudens de beperkingen bij of krachtens de wet gesteld.

Art. 20 . - 1. De bestaanszekerheid der bevolking en spreiding van welvaart zijn voorwerp van zorg der overheid.
- 2. De wet stelt regels omtrent de aanspraken op sociale zekerheid.
- 3. Nederlanders hier te lande, die niet in het bestaan kunnen voorzien, hebben een bij de wet te regelen recht op bijstand van overheidswege.

Art. 21 . De zorg van de overheid is gericht op de bewoonbaarheid van het land en de bescherming en verbetering van het leefmilieu.

Art. 22 . - 1. De overheid treft maatregelen ter bevordering van de volksgezondheid.
- 2. Bevordering van voldoende woongelegenheid is voorwerp van zorg der overheid.
- 3. Zij schept voorwaarden voor maatschappelijke en culturele ontplooiing en voor vrijetijdsbesteding.

Art. 23 . - 1. Het onderwijs is een voorwerp van de aanhoudende zorg der regering.
- 2. Het geven van onderwijs is vrij, behoudens het toezicht van de overheid en, voor wat bij de wet aangewezen vormen van onderwijs betreft, het onderzoek naar de bekwaamheid en de zedelijkheid van hen die onderwijs geven, een en ander bij de wet te regelen.
- 3. Het openbaar onderwijs wordt, met eerbiediging van ieders godsdienst of levensovertuiging, bij de wet geregeld.
- 4. In elke gemeente wordt van overheidswege voldoend openbaar algemeen vormend lager onderwijs gegeven in een genoegzaam aantal scholen. Volgens bij de wet te stellen regels kan afwijking van deze bepaling worden toegelaten, mits tot het ontvangen van zodanig onderwijs gelegenheid wordt gegeven.
- 5. De eisen van deugdelijkheid, aan het geheel of ten dele uit de openbare kas te bekostigen onderwijs te stellen, worden bij de wet geregeld, met inachtneming, voor zover het bijzonder onderwijs betreft, van de vrijheid van richting.
- 6. Deze eisen worden voor het algemeen vormend lager onderwijs zodanig geregeld, dat de deugdelijkheid van het geheel uit de openbare kas bekostigd bijzonder onderwijs en van het openbaar onderwijs even afdoende wordt gewaarborgd. Bij die regeling wordt met name de vrijheid van het bijzonder onderwijs betreffende de keuze der leermiddelen en de aanstelling der onderwijzers geëerbiedigd.
- 7. Het bijzonder algemeen vormend lager onderwijs, dat aan de bij de wet te stellen voorwaarden voldoet, wordt naar dezelfde maatstaf als het openbaar onderwijs uit de openbare kas bekostigd. De wet stelt de voorwaarden vast, waarop voor het bijzonder algemeen vormend middelbaar en voorbereidend hoger onderwijs bijdragen uit de openbare kas worden verleend.
- 8. De regering doet jaarlijks van de staat van het onderwijs verslag aan de Staten-Generaal."
http://www.geschiedenis.com/politiek/grondwet/1.html
''
For those who can't read Dutch, that's articles 19-23 of the constitution of the Netherlands.
They cover jobsecurity, the welfare state/redistributive taxation, environmentalism, public healthcare, education.
They are in the constitution, so by Ken's reasoning, it is moral for the goverment to spend taxmoney on them.

 

Sorry, let me clarify(that's what I get for posting so early on a Saturday morning ).

It is immoral to take money by force and give it to someone else, even though it may be legal to do so. For example, in some places prostitution is legal but that doesn't make it any less immoral.

Therefore, it is legal, for example, for the State of Arkansas to take money from me and spend it on education, per the State constitution. But I contend it is immoral for the State of Arkansas to do so. And the only way to make it illegal would be to amend the State constitution. Otherwise, it will continue to be legal to do so.

 

Ken
what makes it in your eyes proper for a government to fund the army, but not the schoolsystem?

 

Great question, mioque!

To those who see taxes as immoral, I would like to see them propose a system in place of the government collecting taxes. Oh wait, without taxes, there would be no government! And while we might have hospitals and schools, who's going to build roads, and libraries, and tourist centres, and culural centres?

Also, imagine someone who has a wife and three children. He has recentluy been laid off from his job due to the worsening economy, and his wife stays home with the kids. They can manage awhile off the small amount of finances they have saved up, but it doesn't last long. Just as their savings is about to run out, the wife is stricken with a disease requiring expensive, ongoing treatment. Under the "medicare is immoral" view, because she cannot pay for her treatment, she is worthy of death. This gives new meaning to survival of the fittest. "Medicare is stealing" is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

Likewise with schooling. Imagine a family that cannot afford school for their young children, because under the "public schooling is immoral" ideology, they must pay for expensive private school. Thus, their children cannot attend school, and it is thus impossible for this family to break their cycle of poverty. If their kids cannot even go to school, then there is no way that they will obtain a decent, well-paying job, and they in turn will not be able to afford school for their own kids! And the cycle continues.

FInally:

How does one define the "proper functions of government"? I'd infer that this is a circular argument - "Taxes should only be used for the proper functions of government. What are the proper functions of government? What I think the government should spend taxes on."

 

There are proper functions of government - maintaining law and order, national defense, and a court system for adjudicating legal issues.

 

1) Taxes are not immoral. There are some expenditures by government that are immoral.

2) That is where private charities should step in and help. What you advocate is forced "charity". If that is what you believe, that's fine, but at least admit that is what you are advocating.

3) Yes, we see what a "great" job the modern government school system is doing in these United States. I submit that we had much, much better government schools in this nation before the federal government got involved and government schools were basically the sole purview of State and local governments.

Again, charities should step in and help if we had only a private school system in these United States. Again, what you advocate is forced "charity". Again, if that is what you believe, that's fine, but at least admit that is what you are advocating.