Socialism doesn't work: You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

Right, there is only a command to give to pay your taxes, as far as I can remember. I'm not sure what that implies. Caesar considered himself "Lord" and so I find the context rather unhelpful to our present situation, not to mention that Jesus neither condones nor condemns government. Paul says some interesting things in Romans about the legitimacy of government, but I don't suppose that's an endorsement of the government at the time, but perhaps it is an endorsement of the institution.

To clarify, when I said "you should give to the poor", that is not saying you personally don't give to the poor, but rather that people in general ought to give to the poor. Note, I'm not using the word "you" in a personal sense (other languages have words to distinguish the personal "you" from the general "you).

I trust you are a very charitable fellow, and thus take seriously Jesus' instruction to re-distribute your wealth. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Agreed.

 

I don't see this command. At all. The only re-distribution of wealth I see in scripture is the parable of the talents. Please don't confuse the two subjects. I do not support wealth redistribution in the sense that you mean it.

 

I think you are arguing from an absence of evidence. It is equally credible to suggest that Jesus spoke many times about helping the poor, and at no time did he say government didn't have a role.

To clarify, I didn't suggest that line of reasoning.

What is my agenda?

It goes without saying that I disagree with your assertion, though I do admit that I haven't fully understood all the mysteries of Christ.

I don't really see the connection between me being deceived about Christ as being connected with whether I think Obama is a socialist. What do you mean by socialist?

 

As I mentioned before, the application of the parable doesn't have much to do with economics, though economics is used metaphorically. What do you think of parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard? Wealth was distributed equally, was it not? What do you think of the Christians in Acts, where they did not consider their property their own, and gave freely to those in need.

You don't support law enforced wealth redistribution, but you do support wealth redistribution. Is that accurate?

 

To clarify, I never suggested my thinking changes reality. I haven't been around these boards much, so I would be unfamiliar with almost all of the discussion that has been had on the subject. If you don't want to discuss it that's fine, but then why do you respond in depth to my comments? It's not helpful to me to merely say I'm wrong, it would be more helpful if I understood your reasoning, and if you gave me the opportunity to engage in your reasoning.

If the entire economic system was based on a Marxist platform, would you support that?

I said Scripture is silent on the issue, so I don't think there should be any confusion, but I apologize for not being clearer.

There is enough wealth to help everyone have access to basic needs, including food, water, shelter. I'm not suggesting everyone have access to an equal standard of living. I'm merely suggesting that everyone have the means to survive, and be given some opportunities to improve their contribution to society (e.g. access to subsidized education).

By the way, Jesus also commanded us to treat symptoms. Connsider the Rich Man, whom Jesus told that he must sell everything he had and give it to the poor.

Do you believe that government should have the right to steal from people to fund law enforcement and the military? How should the funds be stolen from the people? Should every man, woman, and child give $X, or X%. I think X% is wealth redistribution, which is easier to see if you imagine if everything you bought was based on a % of your wealth.

Again, I'm not a socialist just because I believe that government can do some things more efficiently and effectively than the private sector. Government programs do both in the treatment of symptoms and the treatment of problems. How do you propose that the problems be treated?

Where is the proof?

Again, I never said it does.

Your line of reasoning is kind of like the negative form of the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is the suggestion that something is wrong because of how it originated. You appear to be suggesting that something is right because of how it originated. Either form is fallacious. And I don't think you really believe your logic. If a government were formed on the opposite principles, would you support it? The origins of America's economic system does not address what is good or bad.

As you say, just because you believe it doesn't change reality.

 

The burden of proof is on you, since it is your claim that Obama is a Marxist.

That's right. Genetic fallacies don't make sense. They are illogical.

I don't deny I pointed to Scripture or Jesus. I do deny that I pointed to either as endorsing government programs. I use Scripture to provide a moral fondation to my arguments. We are commanded to give to the poor. We are commanded to treat both the problems and the symptoms. I didn't say that governments are commanded to do these things. Scripture is silent on the role of government in social policy.

So, if one person is unproductive, the productivity of everyone else is insufficient to cover their needs as well as that one extra person? I can't make sense of your claim.

How do you know I ignored the context? I didn't offer an interpretation. I didn't think I needed to. But I think it is rather evident from Jesus' rhetoric that it is virtuous to sell what you have and give it to the poor. Do you deny that Jesus taught us to feed the poor?

You didn't answer my question. How do you suppose government should steal money from the public to fund those things?

No evidence for what? That I'm not a socialist?

I think you need to edit this sentence for readability.

You said it was right becuase it was the way America was founded. That's a genetic fallacy.

America has has a social safety net since it came out of the Great Depression. You are making an argument against what America has stood for since the 1940s.

Why do you keep bringing up the constitution? We aren't debating the constitution, we are debating the merits/demerits of government social safety nets. I don't know why Americans are so fearful of universal medicare. Canada spends far less on health care as a % of GDP, and people in Canada live longer on average. The US health care system is broke. It needs fixing, but it can't be fixed overnight.

Perhaps you can be more clear with regard to what opinions I have that are not adequately backed up. I try not to go too long on my posts, and that means I don't back up every assertion. If I don't back up an assertion, it is usually with the idea that it is a commonly believed assertion. If you disagree, challenge me on what you find disagreeable.

 

But you can see a connection between the teachings of Christ about giving and modern day socialism?

You are either being disingenious or are truly blinded by your own agenda.

Both are probably true.

 

As I mentioned before, you are wrong. I already told you the laborers were fools to be taken advantage of, and there is a great economic lesson in the parable of the talents. The guy who sat on his money was called "evil".

No. It isn't accuratye at all. I support private charity work, out of the scrutiny of our government. I do not support giving money to people who refuse to work. I do not support state-run welfare. I do not support taking money from the successful, and giving it to those who are not.

 

The people you called fools are the disciples of Christ.

Social welfare policy isn't about helping those who refuse to help themselves. Your application is very stretchy.

You don't seem to understand how a welfare program is run. It is not intended for those who refuse to find work. Many people are denied welfare for this reason. Your assumption is that welfare is only for those who refuse to help themselves. That's a very cyncial point of view.

 

I wouldn't do that because I'm not a proponent of socialism.

I don't think the Scriptural context discusses the issue of social welfare. I believe that God wants us to help those in need. There are various means to do that, and I believe government programs can play an integral and effective role. The Scripture I have quoted is to suggest that we need to help those who are poor. Some of the comments thus far suggest we shouldn't help the poor, or that people are better off without our help. This type of Libertarianism is more rooted in the atheist philosopher Ayn Rand than the teachings of Christ. Of course when we help the poor, we should meet their physical needs, and give them the means to be self sufficient, if possible. Some people cannot possibly be self-sufficient (people with mental or physical disabilities), and I think it is appropriate for society to take their burdens on ourselves.

 

You already have.

 

Your source was www.baptistboard.com. Kind of vague.

You are very confused.

No. Do you want to attempt a response?

That is very cynical, and unnecessarily divisive. Blah blah blah, conservatives have perfect motives, and liberals are perfectly evil, blah, blah, blah. Not very conducive to intelligent discussion.

You said everyone needs to contribute for everyone to have their needs met. Totally false assertion you made. Perhaps you want to revise?

At face value, it seems that Jesus connected the two together (albeit with a touch of hyperbole). Do you interpret otherwise? Can a person be saved and then neglect the poor? How about Zacchaeus? What did Jesus say when he offered to make multiple times what he wrongly took in taxes? Jesus said "salvation has come to this house". We are God's workmanship, created in Christ to do good works. True religion is this, taking care of orphans and widows in their distress. It doesn't say, 'teach the orphans and widows to fish, so they can fend for themselves.' Not saying it wouldn't be a good idea for people to fend for themselves, but that we are called to care for the needy regardless of whether we are also able to teach them to fend for themselves.

I re-read it, and still don't see your answer. Try again.

The context is what defines a socialist, not whether socialism is valid. What I said stands.

No government and liberals like to treat symptoms so as to get votes they do not want to solve problems then they would not be needed and would have no reason to garner votes.

Try adding some commans and semi-colons, or something. I'm pretty sure there is a comma after "No".

Here's what might be better, "No. Governments and liberals like to treat symptoms so as to get votes. They do not want to solve problems because if they did so, their policies would no longer be needed, and people wouldn't have a reason to vote for them.

Run-on sentences without punctuation are difficult to read. It's easy for you to read, since you wrote it, and you know the intention, which helps you interpret your own comments.

You are addressing a legal issue, which has nothing to do with the efficiency or effectiveness of government social programs. I'm not an American constitutional expert. I don't think Obama's health care program is going to be legally challenged due to constitutional issues.

I quite like the health care in Canada. Everyone has coverage, it contains costs very well, and it is administratively simple. Why would you say I do not like it? Do you think I envy America's health care system? I don't. I know very few Canadians who envy it. America's system is an unnecessary drain on the economy.

It is not true? Sheesh, the US spends 50% more as a % of GDP on healthcare than Canada. Why do you say it isn't true? The data is readily available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

The US spends 15.3%. Canada spends 10.0%.

Avg life expectancy is 80.34 in Canada vs 78.6.

Who's getting better bang for the buck?

Are there any countries that spend more on health care than the US?

Yes, I am.

 

What's a neo-socialist Rev? Is it anything like progressive corporatism?