|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 5, 2019 14:48:25 GMT
Jesus was not a socialist. His teachings were not political. They were ethical and you can base politics on ethics. Conservatism flies in the face of everything Christ believed. that just means the politics folllow the teachings not the other way around. They are not interchangeable.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Dec 5, 2019 15:41:29 GMT
They were ethical and you can base politics on ethics. Conservatism flies in the face of everything Christ believed. that just means the politics folllow the teachings not the other way around. They are not interchangeable. Politics is ethics to an extent.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 5, 2019 15:51:22 GMT
They were ethical and you can base politics on ethics. Conservatism flies in the face of everything Christ believed. that just means the politics folllow the teachings not the other way around. They are not interchangeable. . Actually they more or less are. We tend draw our political leanings from our moral/philosophical positions, this is undeniable. If some values collectivism/humanism they’re probably going to lean towards socialism. If someone is a follower of any rand philosophy they’re probably a libertarian. If some values traditionalism, social hierarchy and authoritarianism they’re in fascist territory. This narrative your pushing that philosophical ideology can’t be extrapolated to political ideology is absurd and disingenuous
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 5, 2019 16:26:58 GMT
that just means the politics folllow the teachings not the other way around. They are not interchangeable. Politics is ethics to an extent. I disagree. Politics is promotion and partisanship and it will commit any number of unethical actions to achieve its goals. It uses ethics only to the extent that it gets its way.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 5, 2019 16:30:55 GMT
Politics is ethics to an extent. I disagree. Politics is promotion and partisanship and it will commit any number of unethical actions to achieve its goals. It uses ethics only to the extent that it gets its way. "Politics is promotion" Yes, typically promotion our personal ethics and ideas extrapolated to a political idealogy or party. "partisanship" Politics is only partisan to those that don't actually believe in anything than, well partisanship. If you were to argue personal ethics and partisanship don't really go hand in hand, I would never dispute that, but that's not really what were talking about.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 5, 2019 16:31:57 GMT
that just means the politics folllow the teachings not the other way around. They are not interchangeable. . Actually they more or less are. We tend draw our political leanings from our moral/philosophical positions, this is undeniable. If some values collectivism/humanism they’re probably going to lean towards socialism. If someone is a follower of any rand philosophy they’re probably a libertarian. If some values traditionalism, social hierarchy and authoritarianism they’re in fascist territory. This narrative your pushing that philosophical ideology can’t be extrapolated to political ideology is absurd and disingenuous They aren’t. One copies the other to further an agenda. That is why the teachings of religion will be abandoned the moment it hinders or contradicts the whims of politics. There’s never been more clear cut evidence if that with that idiot Trump and his evangelical supporters.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Dec 5, 2019 16:35:14 GMT
Politics is ethics to an extent. I disagree. Politics is promotion and partisanship and it will commit any number of unethical actions to achieve its goals. It uses ethics only to the extent that it gets its way. Its about achieving one's personal ethical vision. The prolifierance of "the ends justify the means" doesn't change that one bit.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 5, 2019 16:42:19 GMT
. Actually they more or less are. We tend draw our political leanings from our moral/philosophical positions, this is undeniable. If some values collectivism/humanism they’re probably going to lean towards socialism. If someone is a follower of any rand philosophy they’re probably a libertarian. If some values traditionalism, social hierarchy and authoritarianism they’re in fascist territory. This narrative your pushing that philosophical ideology can’t be extrapolated to political ideology is absurd and disingenuous They aren’t. One copies the other to further an agenda. That is why the teachings of religion will be abandoned the moment it hinders or contradicts the whims of politics. There’s never been more clear cut evidence if that with that idiot Trump and his evangelical supporters. "They aren’t." No they basically are, things like traditionalism and religious order are core tennents of the GOP, unfortuntately that does bring about a unique snafu for American conservatives in that they have to do ridiculous mental gymnastics to make libertarian economics fall in line with a Messiah that's basically a hippie socialist. So really, when Christian conservaties are praising the teachings of Jesus, they're really talking about religious order and authoritarianism, the actual collectivist teachings are rather inconsequential. What I'm basically saying is Christian conservative really don't value the teachings of Jesus, they value well Christian conservatism (religious order, traditionalism, libertarian economics).
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 5, 2019 17:23:29 GMT
The manifesto of Jesus is the very definition of socialism I think there are some issues with branding Jesus a socialist. Socialism is a pretty vague term - some people would consider Stalin a socialist, some FDR, some both, some neither. But I suppose at its most basic, socialism is where a government enforces a significant amount of distribution of wealth along social lines. So do Jesus' teachings in the Gospels fit with this idea of socialism? Well, not really. Jesus does not argue for forced redistribution of wealth (in fact "Render unto Caesar" would seem to be something of a defence of property rights and a condemnation of revolution). What Jesus argues is for the wealthy to voluntarily give up their wealth and become the same as the poor. Of course, this leads to some on the Right saying Jesus was anti-socialist and was fine with wealth so long as people gave back via charity. But this is an even more outlandish view than branding him a socialist. Jesus tells the rich young man not just to give to charity, but to give up all his wealth. He attacks those who make great shows of donating to the poor, but leave themselves with a fair amount of wealth (Mark 12:41-44). Perhaps then it would be fairer to say Jesus was a utopian socialist - he wants the wealthy to give up their wealth, but wants them to do so voluntarily. But there are problems with this view too. Jesus seems to share something of Marx's scepticism about utopian socialism - he laments how hard it is for the rich to enter Heaven, much as Marx argues that utopian socialists underestimate the willingness of the ruling class to ever surrender their power. One can imagine Jesus nodding along to anarcho-communist Lucy Parson's comment ‘Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.’ Where Jesus would differ from Marxists and anarchists is that he does not think that this reluctance of the rich to give up their wealth means the people should revolt. Jesus's solution is that the Kingdom of God will come about and then the ultimate government (God) will enforce a society where the first are last and the last are first. While he might prefer that people bring such a world about themselves willingly, he believes that this will not happen. Jesus is neither revolutionary nor utopian - he believes in the authority of the ultimate enforcer of equality, God. But that will not be in this world. Yeah you are actually right. I was not really thinking about economics or politics in terms of socialism, but more the idea of social justice. Jesus clearly believed in social justice and living (not really sure how to put it) for others I guess, in that he believed that we should be supporting each other. I suppose that if you were to compare this to socialism (ie the people are important) vs capitaliism (ie the individual is important) then Jesus is a socialist, and as you point out he may not have been a socialist, but it's even harder to paint him as a capitalist. So no Jesus was not a socialist, he was an advocate for social behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 5, 2019 17:34:01 GMT
The manifesto of Jesus is the very definition of socialism Jesus was not a socialist. His teachings were not political. Marcus Borg and Tom Lindburg would disagree with you.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Dec 5, 2019 18:29:26 GMT
The manifesto of Jesus is the very definition of socialism I think there are some issues with branding Jesus a socialist. Socialism is a pretty vague term - some people would consider Stalin a socialist, some FDR, some both, some neither. But I suppose at its most basic, socialism is where a government enforces a significant amount of distribution of wealth along social lines. So do Jesus' teachings in the Gospels fit with this idea of socialism? Well, not really. Jesus does not argue for forced redistribution of wealth (in fact "Render unto Caesar" would seem to be something of a defence of property rights and a condemnation of revolution). What Jesus argues is for the wealthy to voluntarily give up their wealth and become the same as the poor. Of course, this leads to some on the Right saying Jesus was anti-socialist and was fine with wealth so long as people gave back via charity. But this is an even more outlandish view than branding him a socialist. Jesus tells the rich young man not just to give to charity, but to give up all his wealth. He attacks those who make great shows of donating to the poor, but leave themselves with a fair amount of wealth (Mark 12:41-44). Perhaps then it would be fairer to say Jesus was a utopian socialist - he wants the wealthy to give up their wealth, but wants them to do so voluntarily. But there are problems with this view too. Jesus seems to share something of Marx's scepticism about utopian socialism - he laments how hard it is for the rich to enter Heaven, much as Marx argues that utopian socialists underestimate the willingness of the ruling class to ever surrender their power. One can imagine Jesus nodding along to anarcho-communist Lucy Parson's comment ‘Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.’ Where Jesus would differ from Marxists and anarchists is that he does not think that this reluctance of the rich to give up their wealth means the people should revolt. Jesus's solution is that the Kingdom of God will come about and then the ultimate government (God) will enforce a society where the first are last and the last are first. While he might prefer that people bring such a world about themselves willingly, he believes that this will not happen. Jesus is neither revolutionary nor utopian - he believes in the authority of the ultimate enforcer of equality, God. But that will not be in this world. The first Christians lived in a communist commune and God even killed a man and women who refused to participate. Acts 2:44-45, "All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need." Acts 4:32-35, "Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need." This is independently verified by non-Christian historical sources.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Dec 5, 2019 18:42:54 GMT
I agree. A perfect socialism would be the result of a sound Christianity. Of course, Sam makes the obvious point.
The main trouble is that Democracy is based upon the principle of allowing the demons to be in control. The idea of "voting" is demonic, because anyone over 40 knows that the majority always lies. Some people may not want to admit it, even to themselves, but the demons are real. They infest us all, and voting is always going to be demon based.
If the 2016 election choice of the two worst, ugliest, weakest, vilest, most insane choices of eligible Americans doesn't convince a person that supernatural demonic forces are at work in any voting, then that person can't have an IQ over 24.66.
One wonders if ever there was an era when humans were capable of being anything but false witnesses. When Moses issued the law of two or more witnesses being considered legitimate over one witness, he may have dealt with different spirits. I don't know.
But today, it would be the opposite. Humans love to be evil. They worship evil. Evil demons are gods to humans, even if they have to create the demons. I've seen enough over 63 years to have to admit it. The majority always lies about any event they witness. 100% of the time.
If three people say one is guilty and one says the three are guilty, 100% of the time, the one has been correct, at least in the U.S.. We can prove this by the fact that Western culture allows groups to vote on who is being bullied. One person cannot bully three, unless that one is from Krypton. No, when there is bullying, it has always got to be the three against the one. That's undeniable in democracy. When the three maintain the one is bullying the three, they are guilty of blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. No wonder we see so little supernatural help in the U.S. when demonic spirits are favored.
That's also what is purported to happen in the onset of the Soviet Union. Mob rule. I wasn't there. The reporting indicates this. Who knows for sure?
Point is, we know mobs are demon possessed. So what human or machine oversees the practice of Socialism? A machine designed and hacked by the most demon possessed humans? A monarch who may be as demonic as the long list of evil ones we know about?
My answer would be to revert to "village rule" as the supreme rule, with each "village" consisting of people related to each other, perhaps 300 or so, even if a city is divided into over a thousand such villages, each "judged" by the oldest members of the village who had no descendants to be biased for. Those with no relatives would choose a village that accepts them. Each village given equal resources, with a bit more available for special physical needs. Villages could combine into county units where everyone has an equal vote. Counties into states, states into the nation, but with the nation having less power than the village. The nation would have the army comprised of perhaps 20 people from each village, and each time the army is called into the village for police matters, the 20 from the village would be the officers for that village, in charge of other army members while in their village.
Corporations with profits over a certain amount (lets say 5,000,000 a year) would be disbanded and turned over to the national treasury in taxes, to be run by the government. Village and county market would be given incentives. All pharmacies would be government based, with all health care being Medicaid free. A cap would have to be made on prices, particularly for pharmaceuticals. This would actually give the best incentive for the very best to come forth instead of mobsters exploiting and stealing from the best.
Who would oversee this? That's a tough question. Voting for people would ensure the very worst. We know that. A standardized test of right and wrong answers, with no essay questions or anything ambiguous, and no preference for race or gender, would be the best way to get the administration. True, the mob would shout and make threats, but that would only prove that the correct people were now in charge.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 5, 2019 18:52:10 GMT
I agree. A perfect socialism would be the result of a sound Christianity. Of course, Sam makes the obvious point. The main trouble is that Democracy is based upon the principle of allowing the demons to be in control. The idea of "voting" is demonic, because anyone over 40 knows that the majority always lies. Some people may not want to admit it, even to themselves, but the demons are real. They infest us all, and voting is always going to be demon based. If the 2016 election choice of the two worst, ugliest, weakest, vilest, most insane choices of eligible Americans doesn't convince a person that supernatural demonic forces are at work in any voting, then that person can't have an IQ over 24.66. One wonders if ever there was an era when humans were capable of being anything but false witnesses. When Moses issued the law of two or more witnesses being considered legitimate over one witness, he may have dealt with different spirits. I don't know. But today, it would be the opposite. Humans love to be evil. They worship evil. Evil demons are gods to humans, even if they have to create the demons. I've seen enough over 63 years to have to admit it. The majority always lies about any event they witness. 100% of the time. If three people say one is guilty and one says the three are guilty, 100% of the time, the one has been correct, at least in the U.S.. We can prove this by the fact that Western culture allows groups to vote on who is being bullied. One person cannot bully three, unless that one is from Krypton. No, when there is bullying, it has always got to be the three against the one. That's undeniable in democracy. When the three maintain the one is bullying the three, they are guilty of blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. No wonder we see so little supernatural help in the U.S. when demonic spirits are favored. That's also what is purported to happen in the onset of the Soviet Union. Mob rule. I wasn't there. The reporting indicates this. Who knows for sure? Point is, we know mobs are demon possessed. So what human or machine oversees the practice of Socialism? A machine designed and hacked by the most demon possessed humans? A monarch who may be as demonic as the long list of evil ones we know about? My answer would be to revert to "village rule" as the supreme rule, with each "village" consisting of people related to each other, perhaps 300 or so, even if a city is divided into over a thousand such villages, each "judged" by the oldest members of the village who had no descendants to be biased for. Those with no relatives would choose a village that accepts them. Each village given equal resources, with a bit more available for special physical needs. Villages could combine into county units where everyone has an equal vote. Counties into states, states into the nation, but with the nation having less power than the village. The nation would have the army comprised of perhaps 20 people from each village, and each time the army is called into the village for police matters, the 20 from the village would be the officers for that village, in charge of other army members while in their village. Corporations with profits over a certain amount (lets say 5,000,000 a year) would be disbanded and turned over to the national treasury in taxes, to be run by the government. Village and county market would be given incentives. All pharmacies would be government based, with all health care being Medicaid free. A cap would have to be made on prices, particularly for pharmaceuticals. This would actually give the best incentive for the very best to come forth instead of mobsters exploiting and stealing from the best. Who would oversee this? That's a tough question. Voting for people would ensure the very worst. We know that. A standardized test of right and wrong answers, with no essay questions or anything ambiguous, and no preference for race or gender, would be the best way to get the administration. True, the mob would shout and make threats, but that would only prove that the correct people were now in charge. "Corporations with profits over a certain amount (lets say 5,000,000 a year) would be disbanded and turned over to the national treasury in taxes" or you could just turn them into a worker owned co-op
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 5, 2019 19:54:00 GMT
Well said. That is a distinction as often neglected as is the confusion with communism. Socialism is enabling a more even distribution of wealth by right for EVERY individual NOT those with more than they need giving those with less, whatever they feel like at their discretion. I have noticed that Americans often confuse these two issues, especially the Christian right. They resent an equitable social programme and wish to maintain control of certain less able groups with 'charity' which tends to make themselves feel better and re-enforce their hypocritical 'Christianity'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2019 20:18:37 GMT
Well said. That is a distinction as often neglected as is the confusion with communism. Socialism is enabling a more even distribution of wealth by right for EVERY individual NOT those with more than they need giving those with less, whatever they feel like at their discretion. I have noticed that Americans often confuse these two issues, especially the Christian right. They resent an equitable social programme and wish to maintain control of certain less able groups with 'charity' which tends to make themselves feel better and re-enforce their hypocritical 'Christianity'. So as an individual person here in the US, who has no greater control of my government than a vote, I sure don't place my efforts into charitable causes as trying to control others. I sure do not feel hypocritical if I see a fellow human being in need if I reach out to help.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 5, 2019 20:47:06 GMT
Well said. That is a distinction as often neglected as is the confusion with communism. Socialism is enabling a more even distribution of wealth by right for EVERY individual NOT those with more than they need giving those with less, whatever they feel like at their discretion. I have noticed that Americans often confuse these two issues, especially the Christian right. They resent an equitable social programme and wish to maintain control of certain less able groups with 'charity' which tends to make themselves feel better and re-enforce their hypocritical 'Christianity'. So as an individual person here in the US, who has no greater control of my government than a vote, I sure don't place my efforts into charitable causes as trying to control others. I sure do not feel hypocritical if I see a fellow human being in need if I reach out to help. This is interesting because, I was not necessarily casting blame on well meaning individuals like yourself. IF I was in your system I would give to charity whilst bemoaning that my government and accepted social and political system was not doing a better job at wealth distribution and providing a safety net of welfare and health care for EVERY citizen. IMHO this is what differentiates America from the other Western nations who have managed more successfully to integrate socialist ideology and hence programmes into their capitalist social democratic systems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2019 23:05:20 GMT
So as an individual person here in the US, who has no greater control of my government than a vote, I sure don't place my efforts into charitable causes as trying to control others. I sure do not feel hypocritical if I see a fellow human being in need if I reach out to help. This is interesting because, I was not necessarily casting blame on well meaning individuals like yourself. IF I was in your system I would give to charity whilst bemoaning that my government and accepted social and political system was not doing a better job at wealth distribution and providing a safety net of welfare and health care for EVERY citizen. IMHO this is what differentiates America from the other Western nations who have managed more successfully to integrate socialist ideology and hence programmes into their capitalist social democratic systems. And there are a great number of powerful and profitable entities that will fight to keep America that way.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 6, 2019 5:08:41 GMT
This is interesting because, I was not necessarily casting blame on well meaning individuals like yourself. IF I was in your system I would give to charity whilst bemoaning that my government and accepted social and political system was not doing a better job at wealth distribution and providing a safety net of welfare and health care for EVERY citizen. IMHO this is what differentiates America from the other Western nations who have managed more successfully to integrate socialist ideology and hence programmes into their capitalist social democratic systems. And there are a great number of powerful and profitable entities that will fight to keep America that way. Meanwhile over 90% of the American people suffer, many without even being aware that they are being screwed over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 7:49:29 GMT
So as an individual person here in the US, who has no greater control of my government than a vote, I sure don't place my efforts into charitable causes as trying to control others. I sure do not feel hypocritical if I see a fellow human being in need if I reach out to help. This is interesting because, I was not necessarily casting blame on well meaning individuals like yourself. IF I was in your system I would give to charity whilst bemoaning that my government and accepted social and political system was not doing a better job at wealth distribution and providing a safety net of welfare and health care for EVERY citizen. IMHO this is what differentiates America from the other Western nations who have managed more successfully to integrate socialist ideology and hence programmes into their capitalist social democratic systems. There are programs in place to help American citizens in need of assistance. The people who take advantage of the system are the ones preventing it from doing a better job. The title of this thread is a hard sell. I imagine Jesus Christ and Robin Hood would make strange bedfellows.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 6, 2019 14:29:27 GMT
And there are a great number of powerful and profitable entities that will fight to keep America that way. Meanwhile over 90% of the American people suffer, many without even being aware that they are being screwed over. I have no idea where you plucked that 90% figure from. If we're going to get abstract enough, you could go all Buddhist and just say "life is suffering," meaning that 100% of people everywhere suffer.
|
|