Socialism's not in the Bible

[~candice~]

Actually, the biblical culture of ancient Israel orginially established by God was much closer to capitalism, though it was not a purely captialistic economy.

So this ridiculous notion that gets pandered about this neck of the woods, that pure capitalism is the only biblical economic model, needs to be squashed. Sometimes it comes off as if anyone who opposes to pure capitalism must not read their bibles .

Socialism is in part, based on a false premise concerning human nature. Socialistic thinking assmues the inherent goodness of man. This flies in stark contradiction to Scripture which teaches that man is not inherently good at all; man is inherently evil and sinful.

Not true at all.

It is pure capitalism that relies SOLELY on the goodness of man's heart to give to the poor, because it opposes any and all legislation or governance that provides welfare for those in genuine need.

This is the reason why pure capitalism at it's heart will not work. It is greed manifested.

Actually, socialism does rely on man being inherently good. Dr. D.James Kennedy put together a wealth of material on this very subject before his death. Capitalism in no way depends on man being good. It works just fine either way.

No... capitalism relies on the good will of man to give from his own profits to support the needy. This is 100% dependent on the heart of man. Much more so than socialism.

How are you suggesting that socialism depends on man being inherently good but yet capitalism not .

Pure Socialism depends on man to do his part of the work load with no financial incentive to do it. Everything belongs to the collective. As part of the collective, I am entitled to my share of the available resources whether or not I contribute my fair share or not.

Capitalism does not depend on morals to work. Capitalism will work just fine even when complete corruption runs it. The people at the bottom of the ladder will suffer, but the system as a whole will function just fine. Pure or almost pure Socialism will eventually collapse upon itsself as has been demonstrated many times in history.

Errr... I think we are talking about different things. The objective is the providence for the genuinely needy.

Socialism doesn't rely on the goodness of man's heart to achieve the objective. Capitalism does.

[nebula]

Andy, why do you believe Socialism helps the poor?

Looking at Socialist governmental systems, it hardly seems to help the poor at all. Do you see it actually delivering the goods it promises?

In Capitalism, sure you run the risk of the rick squandering the poor, but a poor man has the potential to rise above his circumstances and produce his own wealth and thus get out of the poverty cycle. This is "the American dream," and many people have achieved this time and time again.

In Socialism, who can improve their lives? How? If you produce more, you only lose more.

[~candice~]

Andy, why do you believe Socialism helps the poor?

Looking at Socialist governmental systems, it hardly seems to help the poor at all. Do you see it actually delivering the goods it promises?

In Capitalism, sure you run the risk of the rick squandering the poor, but a poor man has the potential to rise above his circumstances and produce his own wealth and thus get out of the poverty cycle. This is "the American dream," and many people have achieved this time and time again.

In Socialism, who can improve their lives? How? If you produce more, you only lose more.

I'm not defending socialism. I'm defending socialist welfare systems. I support these because althought I freely acknowledge that it isn't the most fair or equitable approach, it is the only way I can see at the moment that provides for those in genuine need.

My last few posts shouldn't be taken as a defense of real socialism (wealth distribution), I'm just pointing that pure capitalism (which I oppose) does rely on the goodness of man's heart.

[Guest shiloh357]

Actually, the biblical culture of ancient Israel orginially established by God was much closer to capitalism, though it was not a purely captialistic economy.

So big business, get rich me centered economy is close to what it was like. What was established by God has not been and will not be seen until the return or our Lord. NOTHING on this earth resembles what the economy of God is supposed to be like. The Church should be resembling the economy of God, but at this time she is falling short. That will change soon enough as the days grow closer.

The economy established in ancient Israel more resembles capitalism in terms of ownership of private property and the right of individuals to prosper to the degree they wish to prosper.

Captitalism is not based on greed. Greed corrupts any economic structure.

[Guest shiloh357]

Actually, the biblical culture of ancient Israel orginially established by God was much closer to capitalism, though it was not a purely captialistic economy.

So this ridiculous notion that gets pandered about this neck of the woods, that pure capitalism is the only biblical economic model, needs to be squashed. Sometimes it comes off as if anyone who opposes to pure capitalism must not read their bibles .

Socialism is in part, based on a false premise concerning human nature. Socialistic thinking assmues the inherent goodness of man. This flies in stark contradiction to Scripture which teaches that man is not inherently good at all; man is inherently evil and sinful.

Not true at all.

It is pure capitalism that relies SOLELY on the goodness of man's heart to give to the poor, because it opposes any and all legislation or governance that provides welfare for those in genuine need.

This is the reason why pure capitalism at it's heart will not work. It is greed manifested.

Actually, socialism does rely on man being inherently good. Dr. D.James Kennedy put together a wealth of material on this very subject before his death. Capitalism in no way depends on man being good. It works just fine either way.

No... capitalism relies on the good will of man to give from his own profits to support the needy. This is 100% dependent on the heart of man. Much more so than socialism.

How are you suggesting that socialism depends on man being inherently good but yet capitalism not .

Pure Socialism depends on man to do his part of the work load with no financial incentive to do it. Everything belongs to the collective. As part of the collective, I am entitled to my share of the available resources whether or not I contribute my fair share or not.

Capitalism does not depend on morals to work. Capitalism will work just fine even when complete corruption runs it. The people at the bottom of the ladder will suffer, but the system as a whole will function just fine. Pure or almost pure Socialism will eventually collapse upon itsself as has been demonstrated many times in history.

Errr... I think we are talking about different things. The objective is the providence for the genuinely needy.

Socialism doesn't rely on the goodness of man's heart to achieve the objective. Capitalism does.

In socialism, it is assumed that man is naturally selfless. He will give freely all that he can for and selflessly consume little for himself. In other words, it assumes that man being inherently good will happily naturally give more than he receives and is willing to live on less for the betterment of the community.

However, this is not how it has worked out in reality. The effect of socialism everwhere we see it implemented is to lower the overall wealth of the country (like what is happening now in the US). This in turn makes everyone equally poor. Those who were poor remain poor and those who were better off join the ranks of the poor.

And instead of this inherent goodness socialistic thinking assumes, what we see and are seeing (such as in Greece) when social programs fail, the people take to the streets in violent protests, looting and the destruction of public and private property.

I have seen first hand what happens when people who are used to living off of entitlements don't get what they want. When I was 18, I caused a fender bender in my grandfather's pickup. I had to either pay a $150 fine or do 8 hours community service. So I chose the community service. While doing my required service at the welfare office, a lady was told that there was glitch in the system and her check was going to be three days late. The lady went ballistic and made a huge scene. I was really glad she didn't have a gun or something.

In another case, one guy had his amount reduced slightly for some reason and he acted like he wanted to tear the building down. I also noted that both of the people appeared able-bodied and able to work. They were not handicapped or mentally infirmed.

[Guest shiloh357]

I'm not defending socialism. I'm defending socialist welfare systems. I support these because althought I freely acknowledge that it isn't the most fair or equitable approach, it is the only way I can see at the moment that provides for those in genuine need.

Yet, you keep addressing "socialism" in your posts which makes it confusing. You address socialism and then when responded to you come back with the assertion that you are not talking about socialism.

[Guest shiloh357]

Andy, why do you believe Socialism helps the poor?

Looking at Socialist governmental systems, it hardly seems to help the poor at all. Do you see it actually delivering the goods it promises?

In Capitalism, sure you run the risk of the rick squandering the poor, but a poor man has the potential to rise above his circumstances and produce his own wealth and thus get out of the poverty cycle. This is "the American dream," and many people have achieved this time and time again.

In Socialism, who can improve their lives? How? If you produce more, you only lose more.

The American dream is not so different to the Australian dream.Own a home,maybe an investment property,a nice car,the occasional holiday....etc.I wonder though if our dreams should be more focused on charity than our own desires.The treasures in heaven sorta stuff?

There is no reason you cannot have both.

[Arthur Durnan]

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the credo of ignorance and the "gospel of envy" (Churchill). It pampers mediocrity - in point of fact, it sees mediocrity as the apogee of the curve! - and it produces stagnation & freeloaders by the barrels full. Whoopee!

Socialism in our books essentially exploits the producer by the consumer, the strong by the weak. It also places mediocrity on a level with excellence. Strange that is. And with its demand for supoosed instant millennium by political magic, I assert that it's not far removed from a demand for utopia via revolution. Those who foolishly espouse socialism should stop halfway up the mountain where there's a little more oxygen.

[~candice~]

I'm not defending it. I merely pointed out the strawman (misrepresentation of socialism) that has occurred in this thread in order to espouse capitalism.

And I told Dave I'd say out of this .

Sorry!

[~candice~]