# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  "The Violence Inherent in 'Christian Socialism'" by Dr. Joel McDurmon

## Theocrat

If anyone thinks that Socialism is compatible with Christianity, then this article will make you rethink that idea. Nevertheless, I dedicate this column to jmdrake.




> Socialism means the denial of private property to a great or even total degree. It means the use of State powerviolence inherent in the power of the sword and gunto redistribute property according to the dictates of some officer or committee of officers. Violence is therefore inherent in Socialism. Why some Christians see this as a means of fulfilling Gods will defies both reason and revelation.
> 
> *The Christian Wedge*
> 
> The Social-Gospel historian C. H. Hopkins notes that Unitarians formed the seedbed of the Christian Socialist movements and planted some early seeds in it. To those familiar with the liberalism associated with Unitarianism, that socialistic activism grew out of it will come as no surprise. I would like to mention the links between socialism and violence in the context of allegedly Christian activism. In short, since violence is inherent in socialism, Christian socialismwhether its proponents call it by that name or notwill necessarily rely on violence as well. To the extent it relies on violence beyond the few instances Gods law allows the civil ruler to exact punishment, to that extentwhich is nearly the whole of itwe must understand Christian socialism to be anti-Christian in essence.
> 
> As early as 1826, although the idea of redistribution of property already abounded, few Christian or Unitarian representatives had begun calling for State coercion to effect it. Instead, Unitarian ministers (and others) organized private Christian social services, such as Joseph Zuckermans ministry at large. In fact, some Unitarians vehemently defended the sanctity of private property. Harvard Professor of Moral Philosophy Francis Bowen wrote in 1856, No nation has ever been discovered on earth, so low and brutal in their inclination and habits, so destitute of any idea of right, that the institution of property, to a greater or lesser extent, does not exist among them.
> 
> The literary critic and radical abolitionist William Ellery Channing some twenty years earlier had argued from the principle of private property against socialist movements among workers in Boston. He urged them not to be so insanely blind to their interests [or] so deaf to the claims of justice and religion, as to be prepared to make a wreck of the social order, for the sake of dividing among themselves the spoils of the rich. Channing, in fact, argued against the ownership of slaves by acknowledging private property as a _sacred_ law, not merely a civil law. In this sense, some of the pro-slavery crowd subverted society by making property rights (and thus the right to own slaves) dependent upon civil legislation:
> ...


Continue reading here.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Has anyone told the commie Jesuit last pope (#212, Petrus Romanus) yet?

*petrus romanus

*https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...38.NbOtfzLqkRM

----------


## Todd

I don't believe that Socialism practiced by Christian's voluntarily is wrong.  In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis states that a true Christian community might resemble something close to a socialist one.  

One must remember that voluntary part.   You practice your socialism over there on your own plot.... and others can practice their private property rights on their plot...

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't believe that Socialism practiced by Christian's voluntarily is wrong. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis states that a true Christian community might resemble something close to a socialist one. 
> 
> One must remember that voluntary part. You practice your socialism over there on your own plot.... and others can practice their private property rights on their plot...



I wonder how they manage to get around that pesky, *"Thou shalt not steal."* commandment.

----------


## Todd

> I wonder how they manage to get around that pesky, *"Thou shalt not steal."* commandment.


I think what he's saying is that if all people practice what they preach then they don't have to steal from each other.  Just what I got out of reading that years back.

----------


## euphemia

On principle, socialism is wrong.  

1.  Forcing people who work to give to people who do not work is wrong.  The Bible says if a man doesn't work, he should not eat.  
2.  Coveting what other people have is wrong.  Taking from the rich to give to the poor sounds good, and it might be good if the rich became rich unjustly.  However, if someone has worked hard and has accumulated wealth honestly, then he should get to keep his money.  He can choose to share with the poor.  If he has faith in God and a heart of compassion, then he will share.  
3.  Poor people should not be eternally dependent on someone else's income.  They should be working to get out of poverty.  We are not rich people, yet a lot of people depend on us to keep working and producing income that is then confiscated by the government.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I think what he's saying is that if all people practice what they preach then they don't have to steal from each other. Just what I got out of reading that years back.


Then why call that socialism?  My understanding is that socialism *REQUIRES* a state (to actually parcel out everything owned equally [so called]). (ruled and controlled by Satan, BTW)

----------


## presence

> Then why call that socialism?  My understanding is that socialism *REQUIRES* a state (to actually parcel out everything owned equally [so called]). (ruled and controlled by Satan, BTW)


You are referring to marxism; that is a subset of socialism.   

collective ownership is socialism
forced collective ownership is marxism


10 neighbors get together and collectively buy a plow truck to keep their dirt road open in the winter?   socialism

9 neighbors decide they're going to buy a plow truck and force the tenth to buy in at the threat of violence?  marxism





> *Socialism* is a range of social and economic systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[9]
> 
> 
> []
> *Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market forms.*


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


There is no arguemnt from a libertarian philosophy perspective which should be opposed to free market socialism.




liberty is about free markets; not socialism or capitalism. 


socialism is a spectrum that ranges from anarcho-snydicalism to command-marxism (the people's state)

likewise 

capitalism is a spectrum that ranges from anarcho-capitalism to command-fascism (the corporate state)

The only thing different between anarcho capitalism and anarcho syndicalism; both in the purest, is whether there were one-of-us, or two-of-us there when the property was acquired.   In the anarcho captialism scenario one man pulled the tool from nature and presented it to his friends; in the anarcho syndicalist scenario two men inherited the tool equally.   That is, they mutually coexist.

the people's command state and the corporate command state will always, on the other hand, be at states of war with one another.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You are referring to marxism; that is a subset of socialism. 
> 
> collective ownership is socialism
> forced collective ownership is marxism
> 
> 
> 10 neighbors get together and collectively buy a plow truck to keep their dirt road open in the winter? socialism
> 
> 9 neighbors decide they're going to buy a plow truck and force the tenth to buy in at the threat of violence? marxism


It would seem that at least one of us doesn't understand what they are talking about. 


*socialism
*
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...11.H6LVKT_7yF8

----------


## euphemia

Collective ownership of a piece of equipment is not socialism.  It's a partnership.

The wealthy willingly sharing with the poor is not socialism.  It's generosity. 

Socialism is a construct imposed on people.  It's a power structure.

----------


## presence

> Collective ownership of a piece of equipment is not socialism.  It's a partnership.



you're drawing a line between shades of gray




A *partnership* is an arrangement where parties, known as partners, agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership

A *syndicate* is a self-organizing group of individuals, companies,  corporations or entities formed to transact some specific business, to  pursue or promote a shared interest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicate

*Anarcho-syndicalism* (also referred to as *revolutionary syndicalism*[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in capitalist society to gain control of an economy and use that control to influence broader society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism


_if I had the initiative I'd update that wiki for anarcho-syndicalism to:Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a theory of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as a method for workers in FREE MARKET to gain control of an economy and use that control to influence broader society._


because that better reflects the underlying philosophy.

----------


## euphemia

So, what's your point?  When people are motivated to share some resources to accomplish a task, and not all of them, it's a partnership, not socialism.  Socialism is with they live in collective economics in all aspects, not just some.

----------


## presence

> So, what's your point?  When people are motivated to share some resources to accomplish a task, and not all of them, it's a partnership, not socialism.  Socialism is with they live in collective economics in all aspects, not just some.


when we arrive at a state of liberty and free markets, half of everything will still be collectivist in nature.


Our focus, at liberty forums, should not be on how people choose to organize; collectively (socialism) or hierarchically (capitalism), but whether those individuals or collectives seek to use the force of their organization to tax or intimidate other disinterested parties for their benefit?  

That is the liberty question.  




> *Libertarian socialism* (sometimes called *social anarchism*,[1][2] *left-libertarianism*[3][4] and *socialist libertarianism*[5]) is a group of anti-authoritarian[6] political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy,[7] as well as the state itself.[8]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

----------


## euphemia

If you want to look at it that way, nothing is more collectivist than insurance.  In that case, you would say that almost everything is collectivist.  Libertarians talk about insurance.  They want to make laws about insurance.  It's collectivist on its face.  Everyone pays in, but nobody owns anything.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Has anyone told the commie Jesuit last pope (#212, Petrus Romanus) yet?
> 
> *petrus romanus
> 
> *https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...38.NbOtfzLqkRM


You should google his involvement in Argentina's dirty wars!  Now there's an interesting search! LOL

----------


## Christian Liberty

Theo, these people will never respect McDurmon because the only freedom they want is to sodomize each other.  That said... excellent article.

----------


## euphemia

> Theo, these people will never respect McDurmon because the only freedom they want is to sodomize each other.  That said... excellent article.


I thought you were leaving, no?  Maybe I misunderstood.

----------


## RJB

> because the only freedom they want is to sodomize each other.


That is so not on the top of my things that do list.

----------


## Dr.3D

> You should google his involvement in Argentina's dirty wars!  Now there's an interesting search! LOL


Yeah, he's good at doing google searches.

----------


## Theocrat

> On principle, socialism is wrong.  
> 
> 1.  Forcing people who work to give to people who do not work is wrong.  The Bible says if a man doesn't work, he should not eat.  
> 2.  Coveting what other people have is wrong.  Taking from the rich to give to the poor sounds good, and it might be good if the rich became rich unjustly.  However, if someone has worked hard and has accumulated wealth honestly, then he should get to keep his money.  He can choose to share with the poor.  If he has faith in God and a heart of compassion, then he will share.  
> 3.  Poor people should not be eternally dependent on someone else's income.  They should be working to get out of poverty.  We are not rich people, yet a lot of people depend on us to keep working and producing income that is then confiscated by the government.


This may be just a technicality, but it seems like you've contradicted yourself in the part that I underlined. The reason I say that is because the act of taking (stealing) from "the rich" to give to "the poor" is, itself, based on covetousness, which you've acknowledged is wrong. Therefore, "robbing from the rich to feed the poor" is *never* a good thing, even if "the rich" acquired their wealth unjustly (an act in which civil restitution would be required in a court of law).

Having said that, I agree with the rest of your principles on socialism.

----------


## euphemia

It's not a contradiction at all.  If there is injustice, the poor should be repaid.  If there was no injustice, then it's not a crime to be rich.

----------


## Theocrat

> It's not a contradiction at all.  If there is injustice, the poor should be repaid.  If there was no injustice, then it's not a crime to be rich.


I agree, but taking from the rich to give to the poor does not sound good, in and of itself. That was my point.

----------


## euphemia

And that's what I said.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You should google his involvement in Argentina's dirty wars! Now there's an interesting search! LOL


I think I will. Thanks!

----------


## erowe1

The thing is, I think a lot of Christian socialists are anarchists. I don't really know what's typical.

----------


## Seraphim

Voluntary "collective" ownership is still private property that the parties agree to all include each other on the official deed of ownership. That is NOT socialism. It is a partnership, but not socialism.




> Collective ownership of a piece of equipment is not socialism.  It's a partnership.
> 
> The wealthy willingly sharing with the poor is not socialism.  It's generosity. 
> 
> Socialism is a construct imposed on people.  It's a power structure.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I reckon Marx, Hegel, and Mises would agree that Socialism is by nature involuntary and violent.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I thought you were leaving, no?  Maybe I misunderstood.


I'm sort of leaving.  I'm going to be very selective about who I interact with and what about.  Mostly just the Peace Through Religion subforum and not discussing theology with people who don't profess Christianity since on these boards there is no point.

----------


## euphemia

> I'm sort of leaving.  I'm going to be very selective about who I interact with and what about.  Mostly just the Peace Through Religion subforum and not discussing theology with people who don't profess Christianity since on these boards there is no point.


I'm not here all day every day, so it wasn't clear.

I'm enjoying a day off and there are a lot of fun things to talk about today.

----------


## jmdrake

> If anyone thinks that Socialism is compatible with Christianity, then this article will make you rethink that idea. Nevertheless, I dedicate this column to jmdrake.
> 
> 
> 
> Continue reading here.


Here is another thought.  The stupidity inherent in any jackass dumb enough to think he can impose his view of Christianity on others.  You know, people stupid enough to think that the death penalty for gays is somehow non violent?  

Your whole thesis is morally bankrupt from beginning to end Theocrat.  For one thing your claim that socialism is based on "greed" is retarded.  Capitalism is based on greed.  And greed itself isn't evil.  Ayn Rand makes this point quite eloquently with her atheist self.  Socialism is based on altruism.  That's why, outside of heaven itself, it doesn't work.  But Moses implemented  parts of elements of socialism in the Mosaic law.  Joseph's "solution" to Egypt's upcoming famine was state socialism.  And while it was ordained by God, it shows the problem of how socialism leads to enslavement.  But at the same time that particular enslavement saved the nation and Joseph's family.  And the new testament church was voluntary Christian socialism.  Again you see why socialism doesn't work.  Greed, which in this imperfect world is necessary for survival, crept in.  The most obvious case of greed was Annanias and Safira and they were struck dead.  But greed on a lesser extent was seen with how the Jewish widows were being given more than the Greek widows.  And what was the answer?  Why the very first recorded case of *affirmative action*.  The deacon Phillip was likely chosen in part because of his Greek name.  So by making sure some of the deacons were Greek the church dealt with the issue of the unfair distribution of wealth.

Now you can prevaricate all you want about how the examples of socialism found in the Bible don't count because...well..."God said so."  But you're only making yourself look very stupid by doing that.  And you know what?  Every time I think "Maybe I might vote for Ted Cruz or throw away my vote on Rand Paul" I think "I really should vote for Bernie just to spite that jackass Theocrat."  Seriously.  Your arguments are as retarded as the pope saying nobody can be a Christian if he wants to build walls instead of bridges.  (I guess the pope never read Jeremiah just like you either didn't read or didn't understand the stories of Joseph, Moses and the early church in the Bible.)

And yes, before someone else buts in and says "But the early Christian church was voluntary" I have three counter points.

1) The law of Moses was not voluntary and it required the periodic redistribution of wealth through the year of Jubilee and the gleaning mandate.
2) The edicts of Joseph were not voluntary.
3) All of the law from the Old Testament is voluntary when it comes to civil enforcement under the New Covenant yet people like Theocrat want to stone gays.

Good grief!  Capitalism can stand on it's own merits as the best economic engine in the world without you ignorantly trying to turn it into some moral crusade!  Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.  That will be the ultimate redistribution of wealth.  Quit trying to serve God and mammon Theocrat.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Here is another thought. The stupidity inherent in any jackass dumb enough to think he can impose his view of Christianity on others. You know, people stupid enough to think that the death penalty for gays is somehow non violent?


Who says this?  I certainly don't  I just think its justified violence

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Socialism is based on altruism.  That's why, outside of heaven itself, it doesn't work.


At some point I'm going to form a more comprehensive response to your entire post but I just wanted to isolate this specific part for criticism. Socialism is indeed based on altruism, but the problem is that altruism is not a Christian concept, nor is the economic character of socialism and its egalitarian tendencies logically possible in heaven when considering the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). Socialism is the principle of collective ownership of the means of production (not simply sharing wealth, which can also describe partnerships, certain corporations, families and monasteries), but if we follow Jesus's words in the aforementioned passage, God owns everything and decides by his own judgment who gets what for whatever amount of work, which is overtly anti-egalitarian, by no means collectivist in terms of either economic power or the exercise there of. Altruism, a concept developed by Auguste Comte (a secular philosopher trying to create an alternative religion to Christianity), posits a benevolent deed with no expectation of anything in return, this is not how God works in a covenantal situation, he grants us gifts and expects us to glorify His name in return and to conduct ourselves lawfully. You could maybe argue that God has something comparable to an altruistic love for the wicked since he also shows love towards them providentially in their temporal lives, knowing full well that they won't reciprocate, but this would also fail because this sense of mercy is temporary and ends in judgment.

A good rule of thumb Drake, never use terminology coined by a raging secular humanist from post-Jacobin France to describe the Christian religion, they mix about as well as water and oil.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> In 1848 he published _The Christian Church and Social Reform_his opinion that a collectivist society would be the literal fulfillment of Christs kingdom on earth.

----------


## jmdrake

> At some point I'm going to form a more comprehensive response to your entire post but I just wanted to isolate this specific part for criticism. Socialism is indeed based on altruism, but the problem is that altruism is not a Christian concept, nor is the economic character of socialism and its egalitarian tendencies logically possible in heaven when considering the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16).


 Letting atheists like Ayn Rand think for you again?

_Altruism: noun  1.  the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism )._ 

Compare with Acts 2:44-45

_44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need._

And for the record *you have totally butchered the meaning of Matthew 20*!  Each worker got paid the same regardless of how much they worked.  That's because heaven isn't based on your works.  Heaven is the exact opposite of capitalism.  In capitalism you get what you earn.  Heaven is a free gift from God to those who don't deserve it which is everybody.  




> Socialism is the principle of collective ownership of the means of production (not simply sharing wealth, which can also describe partnerships, certain corporations, families and monasteries)


It *ALSO DESCRIBES THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH!*

_44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need._

What part of "And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need" do you not understand?  The early Christian church was the exact altruistic voluntary socialism that you are claiming is not Christian based on your misapplication of a parable.

----------


## jmdrake

> Who says this?  I certainly don't  I just think its justified violence


I was responding to Theocrat.  He's the one that made the claim that socialism is bad because it's "violent."  And now your fellow theonomist Hell's Unicorn is basically claiming the early Christian church was not Christian.  Oh he didn't use those words, but based on his misinterpretation of Matthew 20 (*gross* misinterpretation), he's condemned not only statist socialism but even voluntary socialism despite its clear and unmistakable practice as described in Acts 2.

----------


## acptulsa

> ...but if we follow Jesus's words in the aforementioned passage, God owns everything and decides by his own judgment who gets what for whatever amount of work..


It never ceases to amaze me how completely Calvinists or TULIPists or whatever will contradict themselves without ever batting an eye.  So, Grace is a gift which cannot be earned, and works will get you damnation just as quickly as blaspheming the Holy Spirit, because it's tantamount to blaspheming the Holy Spirit to think for a second that Grace can be earned with works.  And yet Matthew 20 is supposed to mean that God is capricious in how He rewards our work.

Friend, Jesus is telling us that Heaven has no ranks and no strata for us, but only equality.  And if we complain about that, and whine that those who got their hearts right with God early in their mortal lives should get to lord it over those who didn't find God until late, will merely be told they have bad attitudes.

And that would be true.  To say that it's a handicap to have hearts that were created to be open to God because it means you miss out on a lot of sinning, and that sinning looks like fun, is to completely miss the point that the long and torturous path to God is long and torturous.  And to miss the fact that, as far as things which are their own reward go, sin is vastly overrated.




> A good rule of thumb Drake, never use terminology coined by a raging secular humanist from post-Jacobin France to describe the Christian religion, they mix about as well as water and oil.


Ever consider practicing what you preach...?

----------


## jmdrake

> It never ceases to amaze me how completely Calvinists or TULIPists or whatever will contradict themselves without ever batting an eye.  So, Grace is a gift which cannot be earned, and works will get you damnation just as quickly as blaspheming the Holy Spirit, because it's tantamount to blaspheming the Holy Spirit to think for a second that Grace can be earned with works.  And yet Matthew 20 is supposed to mean that God is capricious in how He rewards our work.
> 
> Friend, Jesus is telling us that Heaven has no ranks and no strata for us, but only equality.  And if we complain about that, and whine that those who got their hearts right with God early in their mortal lives should get to lord it over those who didn't find God until late, will merely be told they have bad attitudes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for catching that!  I quit reading HU's stupid post once he in effect called the early Christian church non-Christian for practicing what by HU's own definition is altruism and socialism.  HU is using the terminology coined by raging secular humanist atheist Ayn Rand to suggest there is something wrong with altruism itself and to back up his insanity he is butchering the parables of Jesus.  Typical.

Hell's Unicorn, here is what your atheist hero Ayn Rand had to say about altruism.

_[Altruism] is a moral system which holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the sole justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, value and virtue. This is the moral base of collectivism, of all dictatorships.
Read more at: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/862110_

Now read over this and other quotes by the atheist Ayn Rand and explain how you rationalize your views with your claim of being a Christian.  In contrast to Ayn Rand, Christianity teaches "Whatsoever you have done for the least of these my brothers you have done unto Me."  And "You are not your own for you are bought with a price" and "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" and "He who would save his life will lose it but he who would lose his life for My sake will save it."  The basis of Christianity is the self sacrificing morality of altruism that you have joined with Ayn Rand in condemning.

----------


## acptulsa

I don't much care what Ayn Rand said, myself.  I just pray that, if by His Grace I someday find myself in Heaven, that I'll have enough sense not to look askance at anyone over the route he or she took to get there.  Instead, I will work at having enough sense to rejoice that I have another kind and generous heart to keep me company through eternity.

That should keep me from trying to place myself above them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was responding to Theocrat.  He's the one that made the claim that socialism is bad because it's "violent."  And now your fellow theonomist Hell's Unicorn is basically claiming the early Christian church was not Christian.  Oh he didn't use those words, but based on his misinterpretation of Matthew 20 (*gross* misinterpretation), he's condemned not only statist socialism but even voluntary socialism despite its clear and unmistakable practice as described in Acts 2.


Well I guess where I would start is from the standpoint that all violence demands a justification of some sort. Most socialists do in fact think that they're not being violent (because they're stupid... and I'm not talking about "voluntary socialism" here.)  I don't think that theonomists are quite that stupid   I do think that all of us realize that executions for homosexual behavior are violent.  So are executions for murder.  The question is whether it is justified or not, not whether its violent or not.

Regarding the whole "voluntary socialism" bit... I think HU is criticizing what you're calling it moreso than anything else.  Private property did exist in the early church, and as Paul the Apostle made clear in Acts 5, there is no moral or ecclesiastical obligation not to keep some property for oneself.  It is true that many in the early church did share what they had in common, and I think that's great if people choose to do that, but there is no Biblical basis for enforcing it

----------


## Theocrat

> Here is another thought.  The stupidity inherent in any jackass dumb enough to think he can impose his view of Christianity on others.  You know, people stupid enough to think that the death penalty for gays is somehow non violent?  
> 
> Your whole thesis is morally bankrupt from beginning to end Theocrat.  For one thing your claim that socialism is based on "greed" is retarded.  Capitalism is based on greed.  And greed itself isn't evil.  Ayn Rand makes this point quite eloquently with her atheist self.  Socialism is based on altruism.  That's why, outside of heaven itself, it doesn't work.  But Moses implemented  parts of elements of socialism in the Mosaic law.  Joseph's "solution" to Egypt's upcoming famine was state socialism.  And while it was ordained by God, it shows the problem of how socialism leads to enslavement.  But at the same time that particular enslavement saved the nation and Joseph's family.  And the new testament church was voluntary Christian socialism.  Again you see why socialism doesn't work.  Greed, which in this imperfect world is necessary for survival, crept in.  The most obvious case of greed was Annanias and Safira and they were struck dead.  But greed on a lesser extent was seen with how the Jewish widows were being given more than the Greek widows.  And what was the answer?  Why the very first recorded case of *affirmative action*.  The deacon Phillip was likely chosen in part because of his Greek name.  So by making sure some of the deacons were Greek the church dealt with the issue of the unfair distribution of wealth.
> 
> Now you can prevaricate all you want about how the examples of socialism found in the Bible don't count because...well..."God said so."  But you're only making yourself look very stupid by doing that.  And you know what?  Every time I think "Maybe I might vote for Ted Cruz or throw away my vote on Rand Paul" I think "I really should vote for Bernie just to spite that jackass Theocrat."  Seriously.  Your arguments are as retarded as the pope saying nobody can be a Christian if he wants to build walls instead of bridges.  (I guess the pope never read Jeremiah just like you either didn't read or didn't understand the stories of Joseph, Moses and the early church in the Bible.)
> 
> And yes, before someone else buts in and says "But the early Christian church was voluntary" I have three counter points.
> 
> 1) The law of Moses was not voluntary and it required the periodic redistribution of wealth through the year of Jubilee and the gleaning mandate.
> ...


Jmdrake, I sense a lot of irrational hostility and emotionalism in your post. For starters, it is clear that you do not understand my views on Christian theocratic thought, especially when you spout out things like, "You know, people stupid enough to think that the death penalty for gays is somehow non violent?" I don't recall ever trying to defend the idea that the death penalty is somehow nonviolent. But that's besides the point.

More importantly, I never said that socialism is based on greed; you're the one who used that term. I said that socialism is based on *covetousness*, which is a qualitative difference from greed. Because socialism denies the right of private property at its core, it drives covetousness in order to use political entities (like civil magistrates) to steal property from one person and give it to another, all in the name of equality. That's why political officials have to use *force*, through legislation and law enforcement agencies, to redistribute wealth from rich people to poor people, who believe that the rich has too much wealth and should share it with them because they want nice things, too. That is covetousness, and it is a sin. Socialism is simply the mechanism that allows covetousness to have political justification towards the goal of egalitarianism.

Nowhere in the Bible does God give any civil magistrate the authority to redistribute wealth by force from property owners to the poor. Instead, God gave laws directly to property owners to take care of the poor, of their own freewill and in their own wisdom, without the assistance of kings, judges, or elders at the gates of their cities. That is not socialism, though. Socialism, by its own nature, must use the sword in order to give property to other people, and in so doing, it uses the sword in an unrighteous manner. The sword is only used for justice in Scripture. If you don't understand that, then you're simply going to look foolish on these forums trying to prove some "Christian Socialist" idea from the Bible because you are forgetting the _sina qua non_ of socialism--the rejection of private property to attain equality of wealth in society, by the use of magisterial force.

Once you acknowledge that, then we can deal with issues like the nature of the Mosaic laws and the Egyptian edicts from Joseph, in their proper contexts.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> It never ceases to amaze me how completely Calvinists or TULIPists or whatever will contradict themselves without ever batting an eye.  So, Grace is a gift which cannot be earned, and works will get you damnation just as quickly as blaspheming the Holy Spirit, because it's tantamount to blaspheming the Holy Spirit to think for a second that Grace can be earned with works.  And yet Matthew 20 is supposed to mean that God is capricious in how He rewards our work.


It never ceases to amaze me how pagans can morph into babbling morons while trying to twist the words of those who's theology they don't like. Matthew 20 states the terms of the arrangement, God is sovereign and pays according to his will, if you don't like it, tough rocks, there is no other way to interpret that parable, nor any other part of the Gospels for that matter.




> Friend, Jesus is telling us that Heaven has no ranks and no strata for us, but only equality.  And if we complain about that, and whine that those who got their hearts right with God early in their mortal lives should get to lord it over those who didn't find God until late, will merely be told they have bad attitudes.


You spent an entire paragraph ranting and raving like you're looking for an argument, then address me as friend? Sorry, if you want to whine about self-contradiction, do it to a mirror. Your interpretation of this parable runs into issues with what socialism and egalitarianism are, namely economic and philosophical systems where all are equal without a sovereign, ergo without God. You're too busy worried about equality (typical of heathens) that you rushed past the principle message of the parable, namely who is in charge. Get that part straight, and then come back to me about how your whining about Calvinism has anything to do with this discussion.




> And that would be true.  To say that it's a handicap to have hearts that were created to be open to God because it means you miss out on a lot of sinning, and that sinning looks like fun, is to completely miss the point that the long and torturous path to God is long and torturous.  And to miss the fact that, as far as things which are their own reward go, sin is vastly overrated.


This has no relevance whatsoever to this discussion and borderlines on insane, if you are still sore at me for rejecting Darwinism, save it for a thread on that topic please.




> Ever consider practicing what you preach...?


I do so everyday sir, and a big part of being a Christian is refraining from referring to God's revelation as a lie, which is something that you've made a regular habit of, I fear. Get back to me when you've gotten your hormones under control, then maybe we can have a discussion.




> I don't much care what Ayn Rand said, myself.  I just pray that, if by His Grace I someday find myself in Heaven, that I'll have enough sense not to look askance at anyone over the route he or she took to get there.  Instead, I will work at having enough sense to rejoice that I have another kind and generous heart to keep me company through eternity.
> 
> That should keep me from trying to place myself above them.


If you are worried about finding yourself in heaven, you may want to worry less about Ayn Rand and more about the fact that you have refused to believe the first 2 chapters of the bible. Just some humble advice from one of those evil Calvinists.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Thanks for catching that!  I quit reading HU's stupid post once he in effect called the early Christian church non-Christian for practicing what by HU's own definition is altruism and socialism.  HU is using the terminology coined by raging secular humanist atheist Ayn Rand to suggest there is something wrong with altruism itself and to back up his insanity he is butchering the parables of Jesus.  Typical.
> 
> Hell's Unicorn, here is what your atheist hero Ayn Rand had to say about altruism.
> 
> _[Altruism] is a moral system which holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the sole justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, value and virtue. This is the moral base of collectivism, of all dictatorships.
> Read more at: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/862110_
> 
> Now read over this and other quotes by the atheist Ayn Rand and explain how you rationalize your views with your claim of being a Christian.  In contrast to Ayn Rand, Christianity teaches "Whatsoever you have done for the least of these my brothers you have done unto Me."  And "You are not your own for you are bought with a price" and "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" and "He who would save his life will lose it but he who would lose his life for My sake will save it."  The basis of Christianity is the self sacrificing morality of altruism that you have joined with Ayn Rand in condemning.


*Yawn* You do realize that lying is a sin, right Drake? And for the record, lying also includes deliberately twisting and misrepresenting what others have said, which according to what I've heard, is actually how you make your daily bread. What I stated is in NO WAY connected to Ayn Rand's critique of altruism (which is rooted in egoism). You can actually look at the person I referred to (Auguste Comte) and actually look up some of his contemporaries who criticized his philosophical ideas. What I've said is actually almost identical to the critique that the Roman Catholic Church made of Comte in the Catholic Encyclopedia (this is one of those points where the Magistrate Reformers tended to be in agreement with them as it didn't crossover into the realm of soteriology and is primarily concerned with ethics in a natural capacity), kind of the opposite of Ayn Rand actually. On the merits, me allegedly using Ayn Rand as a source is kind of stupid in theory considering her advocacy for materialism and post-Aristotelian empiricism, both of which are incompatible with the Christian religion. By contrast, goofy socialist fruit-loops like Comte are actually quite similar to the people who founded your little cult Drake, I'm sure he and Ellen G. White are currently comparing notes in hell.

For your better education: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01369a.htm
https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/4...-christianity/ (I have some strong disagreements with John Piper, but this excerpt from an exchange with a student is also quite informative)
http://tkcoleman.com/2014/02/13/chri...h-of-altruism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_Humanity

----------


## jmdrake

> *Yawn* You do realize that lying is a sin, right Drake?


Sure.  Which is why you need to stop doing that.




> And for the record, lying also includes deliberately twisting and misrepresenting what others have said, which according to what I've heard, is actually how you make your daily bread.


Well you heard wrong.  But keep on lying.  Web development, how I currently make my daily bread, isn't based on twisting what other people have said.  And when I've practiced law I've done it honestly.  I've seen you twist what other people have said repeatedly.  You're a rank amateur at it so I don't think you could make it your livelihood but that doesn't stop you from trying.




> What I stated is in NO WAY connected to Ayn Rand's critique of altruism (which is rooted in egoism).


The idea that altruism is the root of evil is straight Ayn Rand whether you feel "connected to it" or not.  More importantly it is anti Christian.  Christianity is based on the command that Jesus gave that we love each other as He loved us.  And how did Jesus love us?  Altruistically!  Now I don't know if your problem is you simply don't know what the word "altruism" means or you simply don't understand the Bible.  Probably it's a combination of both.  I gave you the dictionary definition of altruism so you are without excuse.  

Here you go.  Philippians 3:2 _Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves_

And the dictionary definition of altruism?

From Merriam Webster online:

_
1 :   unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others

2 :   behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
_

From Dictionary.com:

_
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism ). 

2. Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator._ 

Jesus embodied both definitions of altruism.  He was totally unselfish in His love for us.  And His sacrifice for us was a disadvantage to Him personally.  That's why Paul said:

Philippians 2:5-11

_5  Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,   6  who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,   7  but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.   8  And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.   9  Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,   10  that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,   11  and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father._ 

There only advantage for Jesus in what He did for us is the satisfaction that comes from unselfish love.  It's the very definition of altruism.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, I sense a lot of irrational hostility and emotionalism in your post.


Theocrat.  I sense a lot of irrational hypocrisy in your posts plural.




> For starters, it is clear that you do not understand my views on Christian theocratic thought, especially when you spout out things like, "You know, people stupid enough to think that the death penalty for gays is somehow non violent?" I don't recall ever trying to defend the idea that the death penalty is somehow nonviolent. But that's besides the point.


Your criticism of socialism is that it is inherently violent.  Well your position on theocracy is inherently violent.  In fact it's more inherently violent than socialism.  If I refuse to pay into single payer healthcare, worst case scenario is I get sent to prison.  Yes I could die if I resist, but only if I resist.  If I get caught "being gay", under your system I'm dead whether I resist or not.  So it's dishonest of you to call out one system's violence when you support another system's violence.




> More importantly, I never said that socialism is based on greed; you're the one who used that term. I said that socialism is based on *covetousness*, which is a qualitative difference from greed.


  Your command of the English language is lacking.  




> Because socialism denies the right of private property at its core, it drives covetousness in order to use political entities (like civil magistrates) to steal property from one person and give it to another, all in the name of equality.


And the Mosaic law denies full property rights at its core.  I've explained that ad nauseam.  I will explain it again.  If I have to allow someone else to come on my property and pick the excess produce that I grew, and that I'm *forced by the Mosaic law not to pick* then what does that say about my property rights?  Of course Christians understand that they don't really own property because "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof."  God basically let's you use His land.  And, according to Moses, He states that you should use some of your land to produce food for people, including immigrants (strangers), who don't have any.

Now you *claim* to want a theocracy.  Are you going to implement all of the law of Moses, or only the "Let's kill the gays" parts?  When Jeremiah spoke out against the sins of Judah he spent as much time talking about the lack of concern shown to the poor as he did about the idolatry.  I don't recall Jeremiah saying anything about the gays.  When Judah went into captivity, they stayed there for the period of time that covered the years that they had not allowed God's property, not "their" property, to lie fallow without being plowed.  So, are you going to enforce that as well?  Are you going to send your Mosaic police around to every farmer on certain years and put a gun to his head and say "I know we claimed we were for property rights...but we really aren't.  Stop plowing?"  Or are you going to be selective in your enforcement of Mosaic law?  Kill the gays and that's it?




> That's why political officials have to use *force*, through legislation and law enforcement agencies, to redistribute wealth from rich people to poor people, who believe that the rich has too much wealth and should share it with them because they want nice things, too. That is covetousness, and it is a sin. Socialism is simply the mechanism that allows covetousness to have political justification towards the goal of egalitarianism.


Guess what genius?  Theocracy involves force too.  And theocracy, Mosaic theocracy anyway, doesn't have the absolute belief in property rights that you think it does.  Mosaic theocracy included the redistribution of wealth, forced shutdown of farming (well...that wasn't enforced until God did it..and He was pretty mad about that), the idea that you can't really buy and sell property because on certain years it goes back to the original family etc. 





> Nowhere in the Bible does God give any civil magistrate the authority to redistribute wealth by force from property owners to the poor.


That's because you haven't actually read your Bible.  Or maybe you don't think Joseph was acting under the direction of God?




> Instead, God gave laws directly to property owners to take care of the poor, of their own freewill and in their own wisdom, without the assistance of kings, judges, or elders at the gates of their cities.


Oh bollocks!  You are either biblically ignorant or being obtuse here.  The gleaning system was not given as a "freewill suggestion."  It was a *command*!  The jubilee system where land, justly bought or taken as payment for debt, was returned to original owners was not given as a "freewill suggestion."  It was a *command*!  And while kings took taxes for themselves, they sometimes redistributed the money to the poor.  





> That is not socialism, though. Socialism, by its own nature, must use the sword in order to give property to other people, and in so doing, it uses the sword in an unrighteous manner. The sword is only used for justice in Scripture. If you don't understand that, then you're simply going to look foolish on these forums trying to prove some "Christian Socialist" idea from the Bible because you are forgetting the _sina qua non_ of socialism--the rejection of private property to attain equality of wealth in society, by the use of magisterial force.


Actually ^that is a lie.  Socialism doesn't require a sword.  It can be enforced by a sword.  It can be voluntary.  Your fellow theocrat "Hell's_Unicorn" acknowledged that I'm right on that point.

[QUTOE]Once you acknowledge that, then we can deal with issues like the nature of the Mosaic laws and the Egyptian edicts from Joseph, in their proper contexts.[/QUOTE]

Why should I pretend that a lie is the truth?

----------

