Compassion and the Republican Party of the USA

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
Please explain your obsession with marxists.
He has good reason to be obsessed with Marxism. Ideals originally espoused by Karl Marx are no longer outside the political norm. Most Westerners hold them and have no idea who said them originally or even the total meaning behind them.

Since it is Christmas time, a good illustration is how people sing "Joy to the World" in the secular sphere. It is a beloved song filled with theological truths, but most who sing it do not realize the depth of meaning it conveys.

Same goes for those who watch "The Story of Stuff" or almost any James Cameron film.
 
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
That's very true, modern liberals aren't classic liberals, just as modern conservatives aren't classic conservatives. The classic method was to compromise, but we swing our pendulums pretty wide these days. The art of compromise seems to be lost, and again I have to ask if maybe we haven't lost our desire to.
This is a fair point. The problem is ideology. Traditionlist conservatives are still fairly common (more common than you think), but they are not as interested in compromise or even political activity: they are preparing for the end. Enjoying life while T.S. Elliot's wasteland envelopes the world around them.

I would like to see them charge more into activism. They are needed in policy making now more than ever, but find themselves stifled by their love of the ivory tower.
 
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
Why don't you post it and explain what is wrong with it ? I am sure if you ask Ritter nicely he would provide a list for you. :)
Okay, I guess I can bust out my crayons and give it a whirl. Son in Me may not be far off in that I could not find Ten Principles of Liberalism. This comes as a surprise because I would have thought some liberal would have taken up the cause in response to Kirk.

I'll put on my New York expat/Ender Wiggin wannabe hat. Keep in mind I am only spit balling, so feel free to suggest revisions.

Here it goes. The ten principles of modern liberalism...

1. The fundamental law of the universe is change.

To believe that there is an order of any kind beyond order imposed by man is folly. There are too many society with different moral and cultural values in existence to account for a Natural Law. The universe itself with its nonsensical red shifts and blue shifts, the shattered nature of human relations, cultural and moral norms so diametrically opposed to one another. So many different categories of being one can determine for themselves.

2. The modern liberal realizes that the only order possible is an order pursued and constructed by man.

The previous point indicates there is no order. This is not absolutely true, as there are is order constructed by man at different times and under different circumstances to ameliorate his condition. Alas, these structures become outdated. Most are entirely wrong and in need of liquidation.

3. The modern liberal believes history is progressing to an end.

It is obvious that the different orders imposed by men have, through a process of creative destruction, given us the best of all possible political worlds up until this certain point in time. We now have it within ourselves to, in the words of Thomas Paine, create the world over again. To erect, by evolution or revolution, a society free of want and needless division.

The caveat is that the new order is subject to being smashed by a newer order. Rule one reigns and it is within rule one that we act.

4. The modern liberal believes in the possession of secret knowledge.

To bring about the most ideal of societies, one must have the necessary patterns mastered. There are laws in existence, that while not absolutely true, guide human conduct. If policy is crafted along the lines of this secret knowledge, the masses will submit to it.

5. The modern liberal believes that education is then salvific.

The main problem of society is ignorance of these secret laws or rather the implications of these secret laws. They must be made to know them through education writ large. This includes but is not limited to their exposure to all the powers responsible for the dissemination of information.

6. The modern liberal is then the agent of change.

The modern liberal is to be a foot soldier in destroying the order and bringing about true freedom to man. They are to be a centered and organized people in their personal lives. Highly educated. Keen to introduce disorder outside their internal order that their internal order may be imposed on the ignorant.

7. The modern liberal believes the masses are to be valued and elevated.

The ultimate goal is the greatest good for the greatest number. The masses will cling to beliefs of old when it is not either in their best interest to or even their will to do so. They were engineered by previous civilizations to believe what they believe to remain subjects or in our modern case consumers. Therefore their elevation may not be desired at the appointed time.

8. The modern liberal understands that liberation comes through primal impulse.

Those feelings that are most basic to humanity are most true. In the past such things were incorrectly identified by wider society as sins. They are, in fact, the seeds of humanity's liberation. Restriction of them in the whole of society is merely a method of control.

At times, the situation may dictate the enforcement of a standard for an array of purposes. Strategy may call for it to slowly acclimate the more obstinate of the masses to their new liberation. Necessity may also cry for it in times of emergency (disease prevention for example).

9. The modern liberal believes the construction of society is continuous.

At all times events and interests are dictating the course of history. The modern liberal realizes the time to think, plan, and act is simultaneous. Moment by moment, life is in flux. We must act within this patchwork to see that society arrives at the most beneficial of places.

10. The modern liberal understands the nature of property and its interest.

As one seeks to reformulate society to the end of liberty for all, the enemy is, of course, the past and the delusional absolutists clining to their epoch. However there is another source of contention ever-present and it must be accounted for: property and in the interest it brings about anathema to the common good.

It is an ever present rule that, even when averice is not at work, the lower-level desires and impulses to create, obtain, and provide for are distractions from the common goal of society-wide benefit. The modern liberal must constantly find ways to either relieve society of these desires, or subvert them.
 
Mar 1, 2012
1,353
7
0
Marxism is the foundation of the redistribution of wealth....forced by the government instead of being won through effort, sacrifice and moral content.

It depends on covetness. It blames the successful and rewards the inept and lazy. Just a fyi, no one is poor because others are not...I know, amazing right?

Marxism was created to uplift the downtrodden but cannot exist without the protected, small minority elite....exactly what the ideology says it is against.

Marxism is satanic because of this, it accomplishes the exact thing it claims to be against.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
Marxism is the foundation of the redistribution of wealth....forced by the government instead of being won through effort, sacrifice and moral content.

It depends on covetness. It blames the successful and rewards the inept and lazy. Just a fyi, no one is poor because others are not...I know, amazing right?

Marxism was created to uplift the downtrodden but cannot exist without the protected, small minority elite....exactly what the ideology says it is against.

Marxism is satanic because of this, it accomplishes the exact thing it claims to be against.
I wouldn't say it is satanic for that reason, but rather because it is opposed to Christ and proclaims salvation not through Grace, but through the redemption of many in the next epoch of the hegalian dialectic which is the advent of the dictatorship of the proletariat in which the property relations of the bourgeois society are abolished including family, religion, marriage, etc.

This is a quick criticism I gave in a short essay. It wasn't really thought out to approach it as a philosophy, in that I didn't take the hegalian dialectic system and turn it on it's head. Rather I spoke of it's opposition to Christianity.
Communism seeks to destroy many things that must not be allowed to be destroyed and is entirely opposed to objective truth. Marx stands in opposition to the Gospel of Christ Jesus when he says that all religion must be abolished. (Manifesto, 26) This is of much concern to me because I belong to that sect which has been called “Christians” since Antioch. (Acts 11:26) Marx seeks to abolish the family, which is a most central component of Christianity, beginning in The Garden. (Manifesto, 25, Genesis 2:18-25) Husbands are to be leaders of their home, treating their wives with respect and the love of Christ, while women in turn submit to their husband’s leadership over the home. (Ephesians 5:22-33) Leadership is not lording over, nor is it so passive to render it meaningless. Marx seeks to take children from their families mandatorily and place them in state education to ensure the furtherance of the state through propaganda mills. (Manifesto, 27, 39-40) This is in violation of God’s command that Christian fathers educate their children and are indeed responsible for it. It takes this role of the father, of the parents, and places it in the hands of the state. (Deuteronomy 6:5-9, Proverbs 1:8, Ephesians 6:1-4, Genesis 18:19, Psalm 78:5-8) Communism contends that the chief end of man is material satisfaction, having his physical needs fulfilled. The chief end of man, however, is not man, but rather God. The chief end of man is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever. (1 Peter 4:11, l Cor. 10:31, ccel.org) Communism removes the responsibility of assisting with the needs of others from the individual as is commanded by Jesus and places it into the hand of an impersonal governing body. (Matthew 6:3) Marx advocates a worldview of materialism, one in which the supernatural is non-existent. This does not, however, deal with the fact that the supernatural is most certainly a reality. (Hebrews 13:2) Marx, like all other men who deny Christ, deny wisdom. This of course is not what they think they are doing, but it is in fact true. If you deny the source of all wisdom you have no wisdom. All men know there is a God yet still refuse to acknowledge this. Not most fundamentally at an intellectual level due to a lack of evidence, but rather due to a moral condition of the heart. (Romans 1:18-23, Proverbs 14:1, James 1:5, Proverbs 2:6, Ecclesiastes 2:26, Hebrews 3:12, Ephesians 4:17-24) Marx did not repent nor believe on the work of the Cross, the atoning work of The Lamb for his people so that they would be saved from their sins. Rather, he lived in unbelief. Foolishness is the result of unbelief. It does not mean that a person is unintelligent. This most certainly is not the case. Marx was indeed a very intelligent person. What he lacked, however, was wisdom.

My professors love me. :) They get the Gospel from time to time.
 
Last edited:
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
I wouldn't say it is satanic for that reason, but rather because it is opposed to Christ and proclaims salvation not through Grace, but through the redemption of many in the next epoch of the hegalian dialectic which is the advent of the dictatorship of the proletariat in which the property relations of the bourgeois society are abolished including family, religion, marriage, etc.

This is a quick criticism I gave in a short essay. It wasn't really thought out to approach it as a philosophy, in that I didn't take the hegalian dialectic system and turn it on it's head. Rather I spoke of it's opposition to Christianity.
Communism seeks to destroy many things that must not be allowed to be destroyed and is entirely opposed to objective truth. Marx stands in opposition to the Gospel of Christ Jesus when he says that all religion must be abolished. (Manifesto, 26) This is of much concern to me because I belong to that sect which has been called “Christians” since Antioch. (Acts 11:26) Marx seeks to abolish the family, which is a most central component of Christianity, beginning in The Garden. (Manifesto, 25, Genesis 2:18-25) Husbands are to be leaders of their home, treating their wives with respect and the love of Christ, while women in turn submit to their husband’s leadership over the home. (Ephesians 5:22-33) Leadership is not lording over, nor is it so passive to render it meaningless. Marx seeks to take children from their families mandatorily and place them in state education to ensure the furtherance of the state through propaganda mills. (Manifesto, 27, 39-40) This is in violation of God’s command that Christian fathers educate their children and are indeed responsible for it. It takes this role of the father, of the parents, and places it in the hands of the state. (Deuteronomy 6:5-9, Proverbs 1:8, Ephesians 6:1-4, Genesis 18:19, Psalm 78:5-8) Communism contends that the chief end of man is material satisfaction, having his physical needs fulfilled. The chief end of man, however, is not man, but rather God. The chief end of man is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever. (1 Peter 4:11, l Cor. 10:31, ccel.org) Communism removes the responsibility of assisting with the needs of others from the individual as is commanded by Jesus and places it into the hand of an impersonal governing body. (Matthew 6:3) Marx advocates a worldview of materialism, one in which the supernatural is non-existent. This does not, however, deal with the fact that the supernatural is most certainly a reality. (Hebrews 13:2) Marx, like all other men who deny Christ, deny wisdom. This of course is not what they think they are doing, but it is in fact true. If you deny the source of all wisdom you have no wisdom. All men know there is a God yet still refuse to acknowledge this. Not most fundamentally at an intellectual level due to a lack of evidence, but rather due to a moral condition of the heart. (Romans 1:18-23, Proverbs 14:1, James 1:5, Proverbs 2:6, Ecclesiastes 2:26, Hebrews 3:12, Ephesians 4:17-24) Marx did not repent nor believe on the work of the Cross, the atoning work of The Lamb for his people so that they would be saved from their sins. Rather, he lived in unbelief. Foolishness is the result of unbelief. It does not mean that a person is unintelligent. This most certainly is not the case. Marx was indeed a very intelligent person. What he lacked, however, was wisdom.

My professors love me. :) They get the Gospel from time to time.
That sound you hear is the nail hitting the head.

In fairness, SonInMe is right in that the hypocrisy and deception involved is satanic.
 
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
This thread is quickly becoming a series of essays and soliloquies.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
This thread is quickly becoming a series of essays and soliloquies.
What else should one expect from a thread about conservatism?
 

RickyZ

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
787
113
Marxism is the foundation of the redistribution of wealth....forced by the government instead of being won through effort, sacrifice and moral content.

It depends on covetness. It blames the successful and rewards the inept and lazy. Just a fyi, no one is poor because others are not...I know, amazing right?

Marxism was created to uplift the downtrodden but cannot exist without the protected, small minority elite....exactly what the ideology says it is against.

Marxism is satanic because of this, it accomplishes the exact thing it claims to be against.
Well, if you carefully read the rich man passage examined earlier, Jesus very clearly tells the rich to sell all their possesions and give it to the poor. So according to your view Jesus was a satanic marxist.

And if the first guy to the table takes 95% of whats being served, all those who come after him are going to starve. So if the first guy to the profits takes 95% of them, all those who follow him are going to be poor.

You seem to have a problem with Jesus' teachings, and math. Amazing right?
 
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
Well, if you carefully read the rich man passage examined earlier, Jesus very clearly tells the rich to sell all their possesions and give it to the poor. So according to your view Jesus was a satanic marxist.

And if the first guy to the table takes 95% of whats being served, all those who come after him are going to starve. So if the first guy to the profits takes 95% of them, all those who follow him are going to be poor.

You seem to have a problem with Jesus' teachings, and math. Amazing right?
Suppose for a moment that SonInMe agreed with you, by his definition the hypocrisy of the whole endeavor is satanic. Ergo, Jesus was not, by SonInMe's definition satanic as he did not make these commandments while hoarding wealth.

Just a quick point of information. I'll let SIM take on your other points. He can correct me too if he wishes. I'm just going by the meaning of the text.
 

RickyZ

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
787
113
Read SIM's post again. Jesus hoarding wealth or not has nothing to do with it. SIM dances around Jesus' teachings while trying to justify wealth hording. Jesus' teachings on this are clearly stated, with no wiggle room. If you hoard wealth you are not in compliance with God's will, end of story.

SIM decries the "redistribution of wealth by the government". While it's true the government shouldn't have to play a role in this, it is made necessary when people ignore Jesus' teachings to "distribute the wealth" fairly in the first place.
 
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
Marxism was created to uplift the downtrodden but cannot exist without the protected, small minority elite....exactly what the ideology says it is against.

Marxism is satanic because of this, it accomplishes the exact thing it claims to be against.
This is what he identified as satanic if you are going by the meaning of what he wrote alone. If you have a beef with what you feel the implications are, take it up with him.
 
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
While it's true the government shouldn't have to play a role in this, it is made necessary when people ignore Jesus' teachings to "distribute the wealth" fairly in the first place.
Why is that the case? Why does the government have to do this? Share your Biblical basis.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
Read SIM's post again. Jesus hoarding wealth or not has nothing to do with it. SIM dances around Jesus' teachings while trying to justify wealth hording. Jesus' teachings on this are clearly stated, with no wiggle room. If you hoard wealth you are not in compliance with God's will, end of story.

SIM decries the "redistribution of wealth by the government". While it's true the government shouldn't have to play a role in this, it is made necessary when people ignore Jesus' teachings to "distribute the wealth" fairly in the first place.
Be careful, you might be a wealth hoarder compared to those who live on a dollar a day.

Also, I fail to see who disobedience is justification for further disobedience.
 
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
Be careful, you might be a wealth hoarder compared to those who live on a dollar a day.

Also, I fail to see who disobedience is justification for further disobedience.
That is an interesting dynamic. Even America's lower-middle socioeconomic class would be considered rich by global standards.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
That is an interesting dynamic. Even America's lower-middle socioeconomic class would be considered rich by global standards.
Admittedly, sometimes I have survivors guilt about that.