Liberal & Christian

[TheAristocat]

Jesus would agree with welfare and socialism. Helping people is of huge emphasis in the synoptic gospels, arguably the only 3 books of the New Testament that Jesus would have had a hand in. The "conservatives" in America today are nothing but hypocrites who want the government out of corrupt big business and lobbying, but only if it helps their causes. If it has anything to do with environmentalism, abortion, marriage equality or anything "unchristian" like that, they hate it and call it liberal propaganda. They do nothing to help the poor or downtrodden.

I believe he'd agree with socialism, but on a small community scale that has God as its roots and not government. I think History has proven that communist and socialist governments are self-defeating. Why? Because man, without religion, is not looking to work extra hard only to help his fellow man. Eventually that spirit in the society fades, and capitalism must again take hold. That's why China is largely capitalistic now even though it was once extremely communistic. Communist communities based on religion can work; communist governments are naive. The church has repeatedly helped the downtrodden, and I don't think we need big government for that. Big government spells big bureaucracy. It's as has been said before, "The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency." Big government spells corruption - not efficiency.

 

[tribesman]

I believe he'd agree with socialism, but on a small community scale that has God as its roots and not government. I think History has proven that communist and socialist governments are self-defeating. Why? Because man, without religion, is not looking to work extra hard only to help his fellow man. Eventually that spirit in the society fades, and capitalism must again take hold. That's why China is largely capitalistic now even though it was once extremely communistic. Communist communities based on religion can work; communist governments are naive. The church has repeatedly helped the downtrodden, and I don't think we need big government for that. Big government spells big bureaucracy. It's as has been said before, "The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency." Big government spells corruption - not efficiency.

What you talk about is communism, which is the so-called next step of socialism (strange it never happened, these governments liked to be totalitarian and control most things in people's lives. But hey, now you say that if people are religious, than this system would work!).

Where in the law of God do you find any trace of a classless society, of egalitarianism in absurdum, of rebelling against authorities, of twisting gender roles, of abandoning the "traditional" nuclear family etc? Because this is, among other things, what socialism ultimately means. Do you know what you are talking about when you idealize and praise socialism, or are you just dreaming about some utopia of your like?

 

[TheAristocat]

What you talk about is communism, which is the so-called next step of socialism (strange it never happened, these governments liked to be totalitarian and control most things in people's lives. But hey, now you say that if people are religious, than this system would work!).

Where in the law of God do you find any trace of a classless society, of egalitarianism in absurdum, of rebelling against authorities, of twisting gender roles, of abandoning the "traditional" nuclear family etc? Because this is, among other things, what socialism ultimately means. Do you know what you are talking about when you idealize and praise socialism, or are you just dreaming about some utopia of your like?

In my post I made reference to two different types of socialism - governmental socialism and communal socialism. Communal socialism is what you see Christians observing in the New Testament when they took care of each other, shared their wealth and their tools. Governmental socialism is what you see in big governments when they force people under a heavy yoke to take care of others when they don't want to. The former is God-centered and love-centered. The latter is not.

 

[FSUBoy966]

What you talk about is communism, which is the so-called next step of socialism (strange it never happened, these governments liked to be totalitarian and control most things in people's lives. But hey, now you say that if people are religious, than this system would work!).

Where in the law of God do you find any trace of a classless society, of egalitarianism in absurdum, of rebelling against authorities, of twisting gender roles, of abandoning the "traditional" nuclear family etc? Because this is, among other things, what socialism ultimately means. Do you know what you are talking about when you idealize and praise socialism, or are you just dreaming about some utopia of your like?

The "nuclear" family was invented in 1950's America. It's a joke and shouldn't be the "ideal" b/c VERY few families exist this way, happily. 50% end in divorce, and many families are mixed race, homosexual, have "extra parents" (like uncles, grandparents, etc) or have a single mother/father successfully raising kids. Jesus had a mother and father who loved him, but his father was adopt and he hung out with a prostitute and poor people. I don't think Jesus honestly cared that much about what was considered "normal" in those days, or today.

 

[tribesman]

In my post I made reference to two different types of socialism - governmental socialism and communal socialism. Communal socialism is what you see Christians observing in the New Testament when they took care of each other, shared their wealth and their tools. Governmental socialism is what you see in big governments when they force people under a heavy yoke to take care of others when they don't want to. The former is God-centered and love-centered. The latter is not.

That would not be socialism per definition, since they did not own the means of production etc. As you might know socialism was a term that came up in the 1800s, relevant to the socioeconomic situation at that time, however Marx described all of history as a struggle between classes from a materialist point of view.

You might mean groups like Amish or the Hutterites today? That would be some kind of agrarian communalism, but could hardly be called socialism since they differ much on how to view authority concepts and gender roles etc. This might be a life style that has virtues, but socialism? Just because some people privately own a house or a farm together and share all stuff it's not by necessity socialism.

 

[Ritter]

I ignore a thread for a few days and a war breaks out.

The "nuclear" family was invented in 1950's America. It's a joke and shouldn't be the "ideal" b/c VERY few families exist this way, happily. 50% end in divorce, and many families are mixed race, homosexual, have "extra parents" (like uncles, grandparents, etc) or have a single mother/father successfully raising kids. Jesus had a mother and father who loved him, but his father was adopt and he hung out with a prostitute and poor people. I don't think Jesus honestly cared that much about what was considered "normal" in those days, or today.

What would you then define as a "nuclear" family? That particular statement is ludicrous without that distinction being strictly defined.

I'm inclined to agree with you about Jesus when it came to matters of faith. He called men to establish familial bonds with Him at the expense of their own families. Certain denominations (particularly Catholic orders and clergy) seem to take his example to that end quite seriously.

But the question isn't what Jesus would have thought of as "normal" but rather what he would think of as righteous, just, and the best overall expression of what the Father intended in his infinite love and wisdom. Sometimes that calls for the destruction of traditions and the renunciation of long-held values. At other times it calls for the affirmation of them.

At present, I cannot think of a chapter and verse in the NT that would either decry or praise the family as a social institution. This makes me curious.

 

[Crimeny]

Jesus would not allow socialism because it is seen as an attempt by men to help men, it is very athiestic in nature and after Marx and Hegel it became moreso, capitalism more or less is got fine lines, keep in mind that these are secular ideas and they are not from God or Jesus, the idea of the individual also tempts people in a different way into the world (keep in mind elite groups that try to subvert other groups for continual influence, it becomes a game and they lose God/Jesus

 

[ada]

ooh ok didn't know that >.>

Originally Posted by systemdown101 View Post
It's a line out of Dr. Strangelove.

Alleged to me..


WRONG!!

 

[TheKringledOne]

Its easy to be a liberal and a christian depending on your definition of liberal. I know plenty of christians with left-wing political and economic views.