God the Socialist

[Mithran]

I have been recently bothered by a disturbing delusional trend that many Christians seem to be under. The entire fundamentalist right-wing capitalism crowd that is sometimes referred to as "moral majority" and vote exclusively Republican. They seem to be under the delusion that God is a conservative, and that God thinks free-markets and lassie fair capitalism is the only "God sanctioned way". How far from the truth have they strayed?

35 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind [a] from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. 38 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

God says 1) help them to live among you 2) do not charge them interest on loans 3) Do not sell them food for profit

This is sounding a heck of a lot like welfare, or at the very leas heavily subsidised government intervention on behalf of the poor. Can you imagine if the poor were able to get loans at no interest? So there you have it, one example of God the socialist.

14 " 'If you sell land to one of your countrymen or buy any from him, do not take advantage of each other. 15 You are to buy from your countryman on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And he is to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what he is really selling you is the number of crops. 17 Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the LORD your God.

So what god is saying is 1) You can only own land for 7 years, then you have to return it. 2) He says "do not take advantage of each other" clearly in this context he is referring to the trading of property. Isn’t capitalism all about exactly that? Taking advantage of people so you can make the most money?

How do you reconcile, Gods obvious command for social responsibility with a system designed to maximize profits?

44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

Ok Christians you’re supposed to sell all you have and give to those in need. This is so contrary to North American Christianity it’s not even in the same world. This is much closer to communism than capitialism. There is a lot more of this. What happened to the Christians? How did they fall so far from the tree?

[phrique]

John Paul II warned Christians in the Western World specifically not to fall for the vices of Capitalism. From his writing Sollicitudo, John Paul warned of the potential evils inherent in capitalistic societies:

all-consuming desire for profit and the thirst for power at any price with the intention of imposing one's will upon others, which are opposed to the will of God and the good of neighbor

Christians must be aware of the need for social responsibility in our capitalistic society. To deny the fact that we are commanded to watch out for our fellow man is to deny Christ's golden rule.

That all being said, you fall into a regular error in your post that many who try to corner Christianity in the United States do, and that is to mistake the behavior of largely conservative evangelical Christians as the behavior of all Christians. As a point of fact, and I know I've spoken of this in the past, Catholics in particular split almost 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats. The reason for this is obvious--Republicans tend to support social conservatism and are generally anti-abortion while Democrats support social programs and generally oppose the death-penalty. The fact of the matter is that trying to pigeonhole all Christians into one political party is a complete falsehood, it's simply not the case. What is the case is some of the more vocal portions are generally Republican.

I suggest you read Sollicitudo.

[CliveStaples]

They seem to be under the delusion that God is a conservative, and that God thinks free-markets and lassie fair capitalism is the only "God sanctioned way". How far from the truth have they strayed?

I'm all for open debate and the free market of ideas, but please keep politics the hell out of my religion. God isn't a Republican or a Democrat, a Conservative or a Liberal, and it debases His name to associate it with the base practice of politics.

[Apokalupsis]

I have been recently bothered by a disturbing delusional trend that many Christians seem to be under. The entire fundamentalist right-wing capitalism crowd that is sometimes referred to as "moral majority" and vote exclusively Republican. They seem to be under the delusion that God is a conservative, and that God thinks free-markets and lassie fair capitalism is the only "God sanctioned way". How far from the truth have they strayed?

Not as far as the anti-Christian.

There's no such chapter "35" in Leviticus. It ends at chapter 27. Please reference the correct passage for further discussion.

There's no such verse as verse "44" in Acts Chapter 1, it ends at verse 26. Please reference the correct passage for further discussion.


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________


Futhermore, I find it rather interesting how a Christian is blamed for sticking up for their morals when it comes to abortion, public prayer, etc... because it is interjecting their beliefs into politics...but also a Christian is blamed because they do not do so in other areas.

A Christian can't win with an anti-Christian either way. It leaves one to question: "Why even bother?"

"Damned if I do, damned if I don't."

Perhaps the best thing to do, is just promote one's own personal morality as it is possible within a current state of affairs...that is, a system of capitalism.

[Mithran]

Not as far as the anti-Christian.

There's no such chapter "35" in Leviticus. It ends at chapter 27. Please reference the correct passage for further discussion.

There's no such verse as verse "44" in Acts Chapter 1, it ends at verse 26. Please reference the correct passage for further discussion.

Sorry some sloppy cutting/pasting by me I will edit the correct chapters to my post.

Futhermore, I find it rather interesting how a Christian is blamed for sticking up for their morals when it comes to abortion, public prayer, etc... because it is interjecting their beliefs into politics...but also a Christian is blamed because they do not do so in other areas.

1) Abortion is not even mentioned in the Bible.
2) Public prayer in a secular society is not mentioned in the Bible.

Helping the poor is ALL over the Bible. This is a classic case of majoring on the minors and minoring on the majors.

A Christian can't win with an anti-Christian either way. It leaves one to question: "Why even bother?"

"Damned if I do, damned if I don't."

Cry me a river.

Perhaps the best thing to do, is just promote one's own personal morality as it is possible within a current state of affairs...that is, a system of capitalism.

Allowing you to ignore the Bibles clearer message of social justice that is all but ignored in evangelical circles. This is selective theology.


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

The fact of the matter is that trying to pigeonhole all Christians into one political party is a complete falsehood, it's simply not the case. What is the case is some of the more vocal portions are generally Republican.

So why are these people the loudest voice? And why are these peoples view of the world so supportive of this ideology when it contradicts its own teachings?

[Apokalupsis]

1) Abortion is not even mentioned in the Bible.
2) Public prayer in a secular society is not mentioned in the Bible.

Nor are the words trinity, atheism, divinity, incarnation, monotheism and rapture. Does that mean that none of them exist or are not taught in scripture?

Helping the poor is ALL over the Bible. This is a classic case of majoring on the minors and minoring on the majors.

What does that even mean?

Cry me a river.

I don't understand. Why are you upset or saddened by this discussion? My point in illustrating (what should be) the obvious, was the silliness of "critics". When anyone of any belief system (atheism, Democrat, Republican, Communist, Buddhist, etc...) is faced with those who who find fault no matter what (sort of like the liberal's "Blame Bush" syndrome), why should anyone from any of those groups feel compelled to respond to such silliness?

Allowing you to ignore the Bibles clearer message of social justice that is all but ignored in evangelical circles. This is selective theology.

Who is ignoring what?

[Trendem]

Futhermore, I find it rather interesting how a Christian is blamed for sticking up for their morals when it comes to abortion, public prayer, etc... because it is interjecting their beliefs into politics...but also a Christian is blamed because they do not do so in other areas.

How is it in any way "interesting"? It is called pointing out an inconsistency. If you want to stick up for your beliefs, then why stick up for only some of them? The Bible clearly supports welfare. Yet many Christian Republicans, using their secular economic brain, think it is harmful for society. On the other hand, when it comes to moral issues, they blindly follow Biblical exhortations. It's a blatant double standard - cherry-picking the Bible for beliefs you want to promote and ignoring it when you disagree with them.

[CliveStaples]

Who is ignoring what?

So far as I can tell, he's arguing that because Christ taught his followers to help the poor, it means we must do so through the arm of the state or else we aren't really Christians.

Or something.


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

The Bible clearly supports welfare.

Really?

It isn't just arguable that the Bible supports welfare--it's "clear"?

I don't think you can move from general commands about voluntary charity to commands to coerce (via the state) others into making the same choice.

EDIT: Which is not to say that Socialism or mixed-market policies are anti-Christian; I'm just saying that they aren't normative, necessary Christian dogma.

[Apokalupsis]

God says 1) help them to live among you 2) do not charge them interest on loans 3) Do not sell them food for profit

This is sounding a heck of a lot like welfare, or at the very leas heavily subsidised government intervention on behalf of the poor. Can you imagine if the poor were able to get loans at no interest? So there you have it, one example of God the socialist.

Israel was a theocracy. So? God is talking specifically to Israel during a specific time. What does a theocratic ancient Israel have to do with any other form of government, let alone one in the modern age?

So what god is saying is 1) You can only own land for 7 years, then you have to return it. 2) He says "do not take advantage of each other" clearly in this context he is referring to the trading of property.

Yup, to a specific people at a specific time and place.

Isn’t capitalism all about exactly that? Taking advantage of people so you can make the most money?

No. Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned (vs state).

How do you reconcile, Gods obvious command for social responsibility with a system designed to maximize profits?

1) God spoke to a specific people at a specific time in a specific place.
2) Israel was theocratic.
3) We are not Israel.
4) God is not speaking to all nations.
5) Rome was not theocratic, nor Jewish, not even Christian. Yet Jesus said "'Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him' (Matthew 22:21)." Jesus is clearly paving a distinction between politics and religion.

It is a distinction between religion and politics, implying that Caesar’s taxes were lawful and should be paid. Jesus wasn't trying to liberate the promised land but to transform the individual heart. And while he opposed exploitation of the poor, he identified the problem not in sociopolitical structures but in individuals. (Martin Hengel, Victory over Violence, pp 1, 47-48.)

Ok Christians you’re supposed to sell all you have and give to those in need.

You misread it. It doesn't say that is what all Jews and Christians "ought to do", it is saying that is what some Christians did. The Bible is largely a book of history. You aren't seriously suggesting that because David committed adultry and murder, that God is telling all people to go out and have sex with whomever you want and commit murder as well...are you?

This is so contrary to North American Christianity it’s not even in the same world. This is much closer to communism than capitialism. There is a lot more of this. What happened to the Christians? How did they fall so far from the tree?

They haven't. At least, not as shown by your examples and argumentation.

Help the poor and needy, love all people (your neighbor) as your brother, now those are commandments, sure. And as a result, it is Christian organizations (not Jewish, not Muslim, not atheist, etc...) that provide more financial assistance and donations to those in need than any other group, bar none.

Merely because all Christians are not living in poverty (according to your misunderstanding of course), does not mean that Christians are not following Christian doctrine. That's silly.


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

How is it in any way "interesting"?

It's interesting how the anti-Christian is inflicted with this mental disease, which bears a striking resemblance to better known, radical liberal disease known as "BlameBushForEverything". It's absurd.

It is called pointing out an inconsistency. If you want to stick up for your beliefs, then why stick up for only some of them?

No one said that anyone is sticking up for only 1, or 2. What is shown, is that the anti-Christian doesn't know what they are talking about yet they consistently make false claims based on that misunderstanding of scripture. See my response in my previous post.

The Bible clearly supports welfare.

No it doesn't. It calls for individuals to help others in need. An individual level. It says nothing about government doing any such thing. What a horrible understanding of scripture Trend.

Yet many Christian Republicans, using their secular economic brain, think it is harmful for society.

It is, at least in its current state. And? What does this have to do with the call for individuals and the Church to help others exactly?

On the other hand, when it comes to moral issues, they blindly follow Biblical exhortations. It's a blatant double standard - cherry-picking the Bible for beliefs you want to promote and ignoring it when you disagree with them.

Not quite. See above.

[chadn737]

There is a lot more of this. What happened to the Christians? How did they fall so far from the tree?

1) Charity that does not come from the heart is meaningless (yes I know it sounds cheesy), recall the story of the widow giving her two coppers, while the rich gave large amounts. Socialism/communism is not at all equivalent to the type of giving and sharing being demanded by God.

2) This problem is one that primarily applies to Americans, both communism and socialism are contrary to the "ideals" on which American was founded, namely freedom. Remember that taxation and excessive control was one of the reasons why the Revolution happened in the first place. This nation despite definite Christian influence still desired to have as much freedom as possible in all areas, that includes both religion and economics. Now this point will come to play a much larger role in a little bit.

3) Socialism in many aspects has strong roots and ties to Communism. If we look at the predominant communist nations throughout history (Soviet Union, China, etc) they have a record and history of being repressive, anti-Christian to the point of persecuting and imprisoning Christians, and being enemies of the US.

4) Liberals, who are typically more socialist also promote many moral stances which are not Christian and are more accepting of atheistic and non-Christian beliefs.

5) Now combine 2, 3, and 4. What you have now is a strong association of socialism and communism with morals and attitudes which are decidedly anti-Christian. You also have systems which have been strongly linked with our enemies in the last 60 or so years. As a result, American Christians have come to associate themselves strongly with conservatism which has long been more accepting of Christian ideals and beliefs while opposing those systems and ideas that are associated with the historic and current enemies of the US and enemies that have been notoriously anti-Christian.

Given #2-5 it should be absolutely no surprise given the strong support of Christians for capitalism. As it is I think you would be rather surprised by some of the rather socialist policies and ideas that many Christians support.....the only problem is that the parties which support these more liberal stances are not supportive of the moral issues which Christians consider of greater import. This leaves the Christian stuck in the middle, forced to choose between one or the other. Given #1, many see capitalism as being perfectly acceptable and rather belief that charity and giving to the poor must be entirely a voluntary effort, rather than a requirement.

[starcreator]

I'm all for open debate and the free market of ideas, but please keep politics the hell out of my religion. God isn't a Republican or a Democrat, a Conservative or a Liberal, and it debases His name to associate it with the base practice of politics.

Uh, why the obsessive need to divorce politics and religion? Surely you would agree that God would consider some political systems more moral and just than others? Wouldn't someone who held God's word as the ultimate standard for life on Earth want to make sure that his political ideals aligned with it?

Futhermore, I find it rather interesting how a Christian is blamed for sticking up for their morals when it comes to abortion, public prayer, etc... because it is interjecting their beliefs into politics...but also a Christian is blamed because they do not do so in other areas.

You are meddling two different criticisms here. One is a criticism of your morality, when it is in practise - such as our criticisms of Christians' views on homosexuals. Another is a criticism of Christian inconsistency. Nobody should be cherry-picking from the Bible - it is an all or nothing proposition. Why adhere to the commands of some verses and not others?

I'm not saying that I agree that you're being inconsistent. I'm just saying that the double standard you accuse non-Christians of holding just isn't there, because the nature of the criticisms is different.

Israel was a theocracy. So? God is talking specifically to Israel during a specific time. What does a theocratic ancient Israel have to do with any other form of government, let alone one in the modern age?

It shows us that God considered theocracy morally appropriate at one time. Why do you think God wants you to have liberal democracy now?

[Apokalupsis]

You are meddling two different criticisms here.

Not so. See below.

\One is a criticism of your morality, when it is in practise - such as our criticisms of Christians' views on homosexuals.

What about such views and how are such views contrary to Christianity?

Another is a criticism of Christian inconsistency. Nobody should be cherry-picking from the Bible - it is an all or nothing proposition. Why adhere to the commands of some verses and not others?

Be specific. Which verses are being cherry-picked?

I'm not saying that I agree that you're being inconsistent. I'm just saying that the double standard you accuse non-Christians of holding just isn't there, because the nature of the criticisms is different.

Where is the valid non-Christian criticism? You need to be specific.

It shows us that God considered theocracy morally appropriate at one time. Why do you think God wants you to have liberal democracy now?

Who said I think God wants us to have [I]any particular/i] type of government?

I don't think God cares. There is no evidence that He does (in as far as commanding us to have a specific type of government).

[GoldPhoenix]

So far as I can tell, he's arguing that because Christ taught his followers to help the poor, it means we must do so through the arm of the state or else we aren't really Christians.

Or something.

Wouldn't be a problem, if you could just apply those same standards to gay marriage, abortion, and prayer in school.


Since conservatives don't, there is a double standard; "I will apply moral laws to government" meanwhile stating that "I cannot make everyone else do what I should do, morally."


It's a whopping double standard if I've ever seen one. Either you interject Christian morality into the government, or you don't.

[Apokalupsis]

Wouldn't be a problem, if you could just apply those same standards to gay marriage, abortion, and prayer in school.

Why?

Since conservatives don't, there is a double standard; "I will apply moral laws to government" meanwhile stating that "I cannot make everyone else do what I should do, morally."

1) Are you saying that no Christian should agree with any non-Christian who disagrees with gay marriage? You seem to think that no non-Christian would dare oppose gay marriage here. If you don't hold that position, then why is it acceptable to you for a non-Christian to oppose gay marriage yet not ok for a Christian to do so? Where in the Bible does it say that Christians ought to morally support what appears to be immoral (I use the word "appears" to illustrate the point that I do not wish to debate the morality of homosexuality in this thread).

It's a whopping double standard if I've ever seen one. Either you interject Christian morality into the government, or you don't.

OK, so a Christian can only have Biblical based values and no other values, so it is wrong for a Christian to agree with a non-Christian. Where is the reason in that?

[CliveStaples]

Wouldn't be a problem, if you could just apply those same standards to gay marriage, abortion, and prayer in school.

I don't think same-sex marriage should be illegal; I don't think the government should regulate marriage at all, or be involved in it whatsoever.

Abortion is about whether or not killing a human is okay. Preventing demonstrable harm is an acceptable aim of legislation, in my opinion.

Since conservatives don't, there is a double standard; "I will apply moral laws to government" meanwhile stating that "I cannot make everyone else do what I should do, morally."


It's a whopping double standard if I've ever seen one. Either you interject Christian morality into the government, or you don't.

I think there's a right way and a wrong way to "interject" any kind of moral system into the government. Whether it's secular or religious, I think people should vote for limited-government policies, and always strive to maintain freedom of religion, expression, and all other Constitutional rights.

I think bringing your morals to the table is an okay move; what I don't like is people saying "You must agree with my political ideas or you're disagreeing with God"--which is acceptable, perhaps, when debating whether murdering Jews should be legal, but it completely inappropriate when discussing "social justice".

There's a difference between saying "my view is consistent with the Bible" (i.e., violates no Biblical edicts) and saying "my view was held by Jesus himself, and if you disagree with me you disagree with Christ".

[Trendem]

So far as I can tell, he's arguing that because Christ taught his followers to help the poor, it means we must do so through the arm of the state or else we aren't really Christians.

No it doesn't. It calls for individuals to help others in need. An individual level. It says nothing about government doing any such thing. What a horrible understanding of scripture Trend.

Ooh, sorry, my bad. I forgot that the Bible clearly commands us to impose Christian morality onto everyone else through the government. I always thought that the Biblical injunctions against sexual immorality and other such sins were aimed at the individual. Evidently I was wrong.

[CliveStaples]

Ooh, sorry, my bad. I forgot that the Bible clearly commands us to impose Christian morality onto everyone else through the government. I always thought that the Biblical injunctions against sexual immorality and other such sins were aimed at the individual. Evidently I was wrong.

Are there laws against adultery or premarital sex?

[Apokalupsis]

Ooh, sorry, my bad. I forgot that the Bible clearly commands us to impose Christian morality onto everyone else through the government.

It doesn't.

I always thought that the Biblical injunctions against sexual immorality and other such sins were aimed at the individual. Evidently I was wrong.

What you are suggesting here is that only atheists or agnostics have a voice in the political system (whether you realized it or not). One's moral code can be made up of several influences : family, tradition, culture, personal experience, general revelation (intuition), divine revelation (one's religious code), etc...

Why is it the case that 1) the moral code of a theist can only come from religion and 2) that the political perspective a theist can only come from religion?

Like GP, you seem to be arguing that no non-Christian would dare oppose social issues such as gay marriage? Or that the only reason any Christian would dare oppose gay marriage is because of some ancient mythological, barbaric teaching (vs believed social imbalances, health concerns, cultural degradation of the institution of marriage, etc...). Heaven forbid that a theist have any views that are influenced externally of their religion.

More importantly, heaven forbid that scripture weighs different acts differently (individually and culturally) and a theist respond accordingly, right?


_________________________________ _{Post Merged} _________________________________

Are there laws against adultery or premarital sex?

No, and that's his point. Because Christians don't push for such laws, they are 1) not Christian and/or 2) consistent in their beliefs.

But then, if an atheist doesn't vote to destroy all churches and ban worship, isn't that "inconsistent" with atheism? Logically: not any more than the Christian is inconsistent. But from the atheist argumentation in this particular thread...it's highly inconsistent.

Somehow, a belief system must extend far beyond its actual purpose (for some unknown reason held by the non-theist crowd here).

[Trendem]

What you are suggesting here is that only atheists or agnostics have a voice in the political system (whether you realized it or not).

False. What I'm suggesting is that Christians are inconsistent when it comes to voicing their opinions in the political system. Why merely voice objections to gay marriage and abortion? Why not support welfare? After all, in both cases, Bible teachings are aimed at the individual (don't have gay sex; give to those in need). Yet the Republican Christian selectively chooses one aspect to universalise.

[starcreator]

What about such views and how are such views contrary to Christianity?

They aren't. We're not criticizing them because they're contrary to Christianity - we're criticizing them

Be specific. Which verses are being cherry-picked?

If you had read on a bit further in my post, you would note that I said:

I'm not saying that I agree that you're being inconsistent.

All I was saying is that it is perfectly legitimate to criticize inconsistency on one hand (e.g. 'You should adhere to your Bible if you claim to be a consistent Christian'), and criticize morality on the other hand (e.g. 'I think your views on homosexuality are disgusting'). You were setting it up as some sort of inconsistent argumentation from atheists while that simply isn't the case.

Who said I think God wants us to have [i]any particular/i] type of government?

I don't think God cares. There is no evidence that He does (in as far as commanding us to have a specific type of government).

You don't think God thinks liberal democracy is more moral than fascism or communism?

I don't think same-sex marriage should be illegal; I don't think the government should regulate marriage at all, or be involved in it whatsoever.

Funny how this argument only became widespread after the same-sex marriage question was raised. Don't want to legislate my definition of marriage? Then the government shouldn't legislate any definition of marriage!

This criticism doesn't apply to you, of course, because I do remember you mentioning that you've always believed that the government should stay out of marriage. Others, however, have just found it a convenient last resort in view of a lack of arguments against same-sex marriage.

There's a difference between saying "my view is consistent with the Bible" (i.e., violates no Biblical edicts) and saying "my view was held by Jesus himself, and if you disagree with me you disagree with Christ".

But sometimes it's true (if you're a Christian). It seems like you don't mind people saying this when it's true, you just dislike it when people evoke God to justify something that Christianity in no way necessitates. In that case, it would just fall under the category of disliking people making false arguments, not disliking people making arguments that integrate politics and religion.