Have you ever considered that in practice, the perfect Christian world is closer to socialism than we'd be comfortable with?

Everyone sharing everything with everyone because it all belongs to God anyway?

socialism is based on a 3rd party like the government [i]stealing[/i] someone's earnings and distributing it to other people.  

Capitalism is based on the concept of freedom.  We are free to do what we want with our money, including giving it all to charity.

Derr.... I had it in the title but I was typing slower than I was thinking in the topics. Teach me not to proofread.

oh great...here we go

[BD]

You're on thin ice here, Ben.

Can you give me scripture and verse where this is stated as the norm for all Christians?  I didn't think so.

Once, in a particular location, Paul encouraged Christians to share with those that had needs, but this wasn't a command to share "everything with everyone".

No, Christianity is more supportive of capitalism.

"If a man will not work, neither shall he eat."

Matt 22:21

[21] They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Mark 10:21-24

[21] Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
[22] And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
[23] And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
[24] And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

These are just a couple I pulled offhand. Doesn't sound too capitalist to me.

Both quotes are in perfect accordance with the basic creed of socialism: From each according to his skills, to everyone according to his needs.
Meaning, it is expected from everybody to work as hard and good as he can, and everybody will be compensated for his needs (not efforts, or skills, or investments).

Holy crap. Kar98 agrees with me on something?

Okay, this one is about paying taxes.  It has nothing to do with socialism.




The second story is about a rich man that is invited by Jesus to give away his riches and become an apostle of Jesus.  It is a story about spiritual commitment and service to the Lord.

You will note that Jesus didn't tell [u]all[/u] believers to do this.  Only this one guy.  And the guy decided not to do it.

It is a common misconception of non-Christians that Christianity is socialistic.  It's not.  And the examples you refer to do not show it to be such.

Actually I would say it is closer to true communism not Socialism.

not.  

Come now.

A fundamental of capitalism relies on a certain degree of exploitation of others for personal gain. In a very literal sense, profit is theft.

In order to have an economic system in which "production and distribution are privately or corporately owned", you must have individual rights and specifically property rights. Individual rights specifically hint of a level of humanism.

In a free market economy, competition is motivated by the desire to amass a greater volume of personal property. As such, the quote, "the love of money is the root of evil" can be exemplified because a competitive, free market specifically relies on "the love of money" in order function. Otherwise, what would motivate anyone to compete and succeed -- dubious goals that they are since competing and succeeding this this sense means that you stole (profited) more than your neighbor.

I agree with many things posted here. I just don't see the need to post "Me too!" everytime that happpens. But yes, I happen to be both anti-communist AND anti-religious.

Try Acts 2:45
Matthew 6:19-29
Matthew 19:21

However, it is not quite true to say that that this was all because "it was all owned by God". Jesus seems to have preached a immediateness in his sermons. You must live as if the Kingdom of God was coming tomorrow. Hence time spent accumulating earthly wealth was wasted, unless it was spent immediately on the greater good.

Capitalism isn't about 'hording' wealth.  There isn't a finite amount of wealth in the world.  Wealth is created.  A wood log is worth 10 bucks.  A wooden chair is worth $20.  Building a wooden chair out of a log and turning profit isn't stealing from anyone.  Actually, it is contributing to society.  Even the wealthiest man a thousand years ago didn't have a toilet to shit in.  And there's no way he could send a letter thousands of miles in 2 days for practically nothing.  The poorest man in America can easily do this, so when it comes to certain goods in services, a poor man today is wealthier than a rich man from the stone age.

Bill Gates didn't get rich by stealing money from you.  He got rich by inventing a product that you chose to buy and used to post on this board.  If there weren't millions of men and women in this country working hard every day to produce goods, offer their services, and inventing state of the art products, then the almighty buck would be worth nothing but the paper it was printed on.

Oh no. I am a firm believer that greed is good.. and anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for. [;)]

WOW! I posted a quoted reply before the original. GOATBOY!!!!

That is a lie spread by socialists.  To simplify things, imagine if you lived on a deserted island.  You built yourself a palmtree house, coconut cups, and a rock stove.  You have just enriched yourself.  Now imagine that the island is populated.  You decide to focus on building palm tree houses only and you get really good at making them.  So you trade one of these houses to someone who specializes in building rock stoves, and to other people who specialize in making other things.  So now you can have a really good house, a really good stove, really good coconut cups, etc.  This is the basis of capitalism.  Money is only a medium of trade.

Communism works much better in small groups of people.  For example, a family where everyone shares everything and works for the greater good of the family.  But communism/socialism on a large scale does not work, because it is forced down people's throats.  People do not want to work for the greater good of strangers, and people interested in enriching only themselves abuse the system.  Communism only works on a voluntary basis, such as the american indian tribes were.  But if you were a bum and didn't contribute to the tribe, then you were kicked out and left to fend for yourself.  In a capitalist society, we have the freedom to share our belongings with whoever we want.  Nothing is stopping anyone from giving their money to poorer people.

Socialism, as originally described, is an economic utopia for all concerned, and could be described as Christianity applied to economics.

However, reality dictates that humans are not good enough for true Socialism to work. As such, we end up with the socialism being practiced in Europe (which strangles economic and other freedoms) or, when applied in the extreme, Communism.

OTOH, capitalism is, IMO, Socialism modified to reflect the realities and needs of human nature. If allowed to run unchecked, capitalism will find a market for 99% of the problems we face, and create the mechanisms to solve them, all this while providing everyone with the freedom to live their lives as they see fit without hurting anyone else.

Zero-sum philosophy happens to explain the world today far better than any other. Its also why we must watch the third world so closely. When they realize the world is a zero-sum game, guess who they are going to come after.

You got a new job, mister. From now on, you WILL report sports scores to us, the day prior to the event.

Non capitalistic? Has nothing to do with monetary systems at all. The Pharisees were attempting to trick Jesus with their question. Had he said 'Caesar', they would have denounced him at the synagogue for the heresy of holding Caesar above God, by supporting a tribute to Caesar over God. Had he answered 'God', then they would have denounced him to Roman authorities for sedition against the Emperor.

His answer was both to show them he knew their trick, and to send a message. The kingdom of God is not of this world, and thus are we bound in two worlds...the spirtual and the earthly. We have duties to both which must be discharged, and we must remember this. Though we must do both, he is here reminding us to discharge our duties to the earthly realm in such a way as befits one of God's children.



The man wanted to know a quick and easy way to heaven. Jesus showed him that there IS no easy way to heaven. He further showed the man evidence of his own sin, that of greed. If attaining heaven was as important to this man as he said it was, then his greed would not have gotten the best of him. Jesus further says that those who trust in money, ie - material things, ie - pleasures of the flesh, will find it very difficult to attain heaven. Nothing pro or anti socialist there. Merely point out that greed is a difficult sin.



So...when I volunteer at the local soup kitchen, or help out with meals on wheels, or give to Toys for Tots, or donate to organizations that work with the poor, I'm a socialist?

Charity and socialism are two ENTIRELY different things. In the first, Paul ENCOURAGED. Not demanded, not required, not 'do this or I'll have your head'...he encouraged Christians to be called to charity.

In the second...if you don't work, you don't eat...socialist? Then I guess everyone here who wants to push for requiring welfare recipients to find jobs are hard core Stalinists then. It means you earn you keep. You shouldn't expect to get anything for free. If you want something, then you should work for it, and expend the effort to obtain it by your own work and not the charity of others.

The biggest problem with trying to use scripture is that you often can't simply take one line out of it and present it. ESPECIALLY the parables. They mean entire different things outside of the context.

Take the Caesar quote. Just looking at it, one can make one interpretation. However, when looking at it with the understanding of the motivations of the Pharisees, and of their specific phrasing of the question, and the intentions of Jesus' reply, we come to a much different interpretation.

Technically the perfect Christian world will be a Monarchy.  In heaven, God will reign.  

I love it when non-christians tell me what I supposedly believe.  Hey guys, if everything belongs to God the way you describe, why does God say "Thou shalt not steal" HUH? That means don't steal my stuff sucka!!

But perfectly OK for Christians to tell non-christians what they supposedly believe? Not so comfortable is it to face what non christians get every day.

Suck it up.

A monarchy is a form of government, not a form of economy.

That's correct Ben

In heaven, I'll live in a theocracy.

In eternity, you will live in communism.

[:D]

Except for a couple of small factors - finite supply of resources relative to your ability to trade. Supply and demand are hard to overcome.

If you run out of palm trees, you're screwed. Now, if the other guy down the path who also builds palm huts can corner the supply market on available trees, he can force you out of business.

I think that the fundamental flaw in your argument is that you are confusing the means with the ends.  The end of providing for those [b]in need[/b] (as opposed to those who are simply lazy or irresposible) is a worthy one.  It is the means of government-sponsored wealth redistribution that is objectionable.

Socialism suck @$$

People get lazy, as everyone gets the same pay-ticket(what we got in the old USSR), and some people work their asses off for the same amount that an unemployed drunk gets.

Look at Michael Kalashnikov for example, he developed the most mass-produced and reliable weapon design in world history, and all he got was a medal, and living the rest of his life in poverty.

My family, for another example, used to own ALOT of land back before the revolution, hundreds of horses, a mass of live-stock, and an armory(mostly midieval stuff). When Lenin came around with his socialist revolution, my family lost EVERYTHING, and all they got in return was a small house and a minute fraction of the pay.

Any forms of goverment that have [u]no fixed class[/u], Capitalism, and arent labeled democracy?

Let those who have ears hear. Let those who have eyes see. The LAST thing on the Lords mind here, is economics.

Matthew 13:9  Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10  And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11  He answered and said unto them, [red]Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12  For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
15  For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16  But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.[/red]


Ya want economics?? Read the story of the talents!!

Matt 25:14 ¶ [b]For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15  And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16  Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17  And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18  But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
19  After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20  And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21  His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22  He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23  His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24  Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25  And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26  His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27  Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28  Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29  For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.[/b]

Looks like God's into PROFIT to me!!!

Wrong! Capitalism relies upon volentary transactions, and volentary transactions are not theft.

Socialism is theft--it relies upon force. Socialist systems that don't resort to force from the get-go die quickly. Kinda like the early socialist English settlements in the New World, which either converted to private ownership or perished.



I fail to see that individual rights, including property rights, are inherently un-Christian.



No, the "love of money" isn't required. This is sorta a technocality, but no one really works for money. People work for the things that money can do, and they can (and do) work for these things in a society without money, just not nearly as efficiently. The real motivation isn't money.

As a side point, the idea that "the love of money is the root of all evil" seems both silly and false. Consider the evil of the Soviet Union -- it was one of the great evils of all time, yet one of its goals was to eliminate the need for money (and via government-set pricing, it eliminated one of money's most useful features, eventually leading to the fall of the Soviet Union). No, the real root of all evil is the desire to control others.



Profit does not equal theft. In a free market, profit is based upon volentary trade.

Fundamental view of Karl Marx.... It's also BULLSHIT!!

"Profit", is the "wage", (coporate, or private), one receives for manufacturing/delivering/installing, product..

Capitalism is a voluntary approach. I have choice of whether or not to buy. The worker negotiates his wage. Who is being exploited??

This is really beside the point.

If someone manages to corner the market on trees, sure, he can put you out of business (although he would probably be better off selling you trees, and you might just come up with something else to use as raw materials). But since the trees were not yours in the first place, he isn't steeling from you. It isn't theft. Free markets have to follow supply and demand, but the markets also alter supply and demand. For example, markets discover uses for things that previously had little demand: the sand used to make glass, or computer chips, for example. The supply side isn't simply raw materials; it is also human labor and ingenuity.

I "feel" [;D] much better now Ben. For a few moments there, I thought you had forgotten your American roots, and were gonna go frenchie on us or something!!!! [:D]

All is well.. [snoopy]

No, no, no. You're having a problem of perspective here. "Everybody according to his skills" means you have to work where the _state_ decides your skills are used best, and the state also decides your amount of work, and your field. There's no room for private enterprise.
And "Everybody according to his needs", means everybody gets (instead of wages, profits, incentives -like the car you buy or the house you live in-) what the state decides he _needs_ to keep your ability to work. Nobody _needs_ a car, if you need to go to work, take the bus. And if you still happen to need one, the state decides what models are available. And you really don't _need_ that big ole house, it will be made the People's Culture Palace, you and your family can go and live in a 3-room-apartment. The state decides that nobody needs more than a 100 sqr feet, so that's what you're getting.
Your extra-curricular activities at the soup-kitchen, or donating to charitable organizations don't have anything to do with socialism. That's your very own decision to so, nobody forces you to so.

Going back to BenDover's initial post. I can see his point. What with all the anti-rich rhetoric, and give your stuff away and share with your brethren, and live in poverty &c.?
Both Christianity and Communism have been started as cults of promises of a wonderful future (wether it be in the afterlife or for you great-grandchildren) for the poor and oppressed, both rose to become official state ideologies, both caused the unnecessary death of millions, and both preached modest standards of living, i.e. poverty, for the sheeple while the leaders amassed wealth and power. Oh, I _just_ thought of that, I promise: both have been started by Jews.

Personally, I reject both ideologies for myself; if it helps some people to behave, that's fine, jedem das^H^H^H^each to his own, I say. But no state ideology will impose its moral believes on me or my descendants.

Couple of good books to read on this.

The God In The Machine by Isabel Patterson
The Road to Serfdom by Fred Hayek

What I believe is that you need a successful capitalist system to even CONSIDER having socialism.  Then you have to take the chance that if it's not VOLUNTARY charity or welfare,  it is THEFT.  

If socialism were superior we would still be living in family tribal groups and there would be no private ownership (what for?) or freedom of action/INDIVIDUALISM (that would lead to GREED).  The mob of people you live with would direct the economy and your labor.

You're welcome to believe that is close to Christianity but it sure doesn't sound like it to me.  It sounds like the opposite, HELL ON EARTH.

Edit:

This discussion will go no where until there is an agreement on the principles of Christianity and you won't get it here any time soon.  Look around and see how diverse the sects are.  Maybe more so than Islam.

The perfect Christian world may indeed be close to socialism, but it would be a voluntary socialism not the compelled sharing of property by force that socialism is in this world.  No action forced upon you contrary to your free will is worthy of commendation.  

Flawed human nature is the reason that true socialism can never work.  Until such time as human nature is no longer flawed I'll stick with capitalism.