Socialism and the Bible ------A Cultural Prophecy | Dr. David Jeremiah

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Luce NDs

Well-Known Member
The problem I see with capitalism is that when it comes to taking care of those with less, the vulnerable and the poor, it becomes a choice rather than a duty.....which perpetuates that we will always have the poor among us.
And it seems to encourage monopolies which can hold democracy hostage.

It is a capital impression that those of avarice can take opportunity of if they dispose of conscience ... perhaps a fatalist condition in the longer run?

Thus it goes down with the dense stuff that fall from space .. a lighter place and bigger to absorb essence ... near ghostly attraction!

Depends on how you word the expressions of the two of these urges as de deux or demi urge! Still ante as leading portion ...
 

Mendalla

Agnostic pan(en)theist gorilla
Pronouns
He/Him/His
The problem I see with capitalism is that when it comes to taking care of those with less, the vulnerable and the poor, it becomes a choice rather than a duty.....which perpetuates that we will always have the poor among us.
And it seems to encourage monopolies which can hold democracy hostage.
It also enabled the building of a society where the vast majority of children live to adulthood and the average life expectancy at birth is now over eighty years in some countries. It has built a world where we can know and understand people from the other side of the world and where there are resources available to send to help people in other countries.

I am not saying capitalism has no problems, but they are often products of the system failing (e.g. monopolies) rather than it working. Those failings are why I do not believe in unrestricted free enterprise. But the goal should be to fix the problems, not eliminate the principle of enabling people to make money from the fruit of their labour.

As for caring for the poor and others, do you think the poor in pre-industrial, feudal societies were any better off? In fact our modern, capitalist society has more resources for helping them than those societies. A fair, just taxation system to support government assistance programs and redistribute a portion of wealth is quite compatible with capitalism and only certain corporate (note, corporate, not capitalist) and political interests think otherwise.

But "eat the rich" is not a fair, just system. It is revenge for perceived slights and is what led to the chaos of the Cultural Revolution in China. Let's look at what is needed to make the system fair and just for all, not how to punish the .01%.
 
Last edited:

Mendalla

Agnostic pan(en)theist gorilla
Pronouns
He/Him/His
And on topic, I challenge anyone to show me a passage where Jesus explicitly condemns making money by selling goods and services, other than the specfic case of doing it in the temple. I certainly don't recall him ever doing so.
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
Jesus never did condemn people for making money by selling their goods ------Jesus has no problem with people making an honest living -------what He has a problem with what they did with that money -----

Jesus was all about the heart ------Jesus did serve the poor and needy -----he did it voluntarily out of Agape -----so just because he served the poor does not mean Jesus was a Socialist ----

Here are some reasons why I think that ----

There is not one scripture that says that Jesus advocated that the Government be involved in helping the poor -----

People's financial situation was not Jesus priority -----Socialism is concerned with some people having more money than others ----Jesus actually addressed this subject ------

Luke 12 ----NIV ---The Parable of the Rich Fool​

13 Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

14 Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?”

15 Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”


I say -----Here we see Jesus rebuking the man for bringing his complaint about his finances and for caring about the wrong things in his life --He says Watch Out -----

There is also the Parable where the workers were hired for the day and some workers were hired later and got the same pay and the first workers complained about this ---and again Jesus rebukes the complaint ------Matthew 20


Jesus redistributed wealth to the diligent not the sluggard ------

This is shown in the Parable of the Ten Talents ----where the one who buried his money had that taken from him and it was given to the who did the right thing with their share and gained more -----Matthew 25 ---

Do these things sound like a socialist ???/

Jesus concern is all about stewardship regardless of how much one has ------

Socialism likes to take from those who have and give it to those who don't have -----

and some use Acts 2 verse 45 to prove Jesus was a socialist -----which says this ---


The Fellowship of the Believers​

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.
45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Just because these people sold their possessions and property and gave to the poor does not mean that Jesus condones Socialism ------or that they were socialists ------verse 44 says this -------

All the believers were together and had everything in common.---so what does that mean ------all things they possessed belonged to them all ---there was no one who was better off then the other ---everything -they had --their land and possessions were common ground to all ----they were putting off selfishness and causing charity -----they were not forced to give up all they had they did it willingly and with a good heart -----

I say ---there is not one scripture that says they force people to give up their possessions or property --that they abolished private property ---or shared in the means of any production --to follow Jesus ---

Acts 5 NIV

Ananias and Sapphira​

5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?

4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say -----You see here Peter is not upset about the money they kept---he is upset that they lied to the Holy Spirit and to God -------Peter never said that the poor have a right to the property of the rich ---

Jesus taught contentment regardless of our situation ----Our Generosity is to be out of love not compulsion ----Our faith and reliance is to be on God to provide all our needs ---not the Government or any other source -----

So for me Jesus was not a Socialist and neither were his followers ------and the Bible in my view does not teach Socialism is the way -----
 

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Pronouns
She/Her/Her
There is also the Parable where the workers were hired for the day and some workers were hired later and got the same pay and the first workers complained about this ---and again Jesus rebukes the complaint ------Matthew 20

Sorry, unsafe, but that passage actually supports "socialism". The ones hired at the end of the day got the same wage as those hired at the beginning of the day. At first glance, this seems unfair, but in fact, a day's labour is recompensed by the amount of money needed to feed a family for the day, and so they all "needed" a day's pay. Socialism in action.
 

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Pronouns
She/Her/Her
unsafe, I'm not sure whether you're Canadian or American, I suspect the former, i.e. Canadian. You live in a socialist-capitalistic-democratic country, in that case, and I'm not sure what about Canada you'd like to make "less" socialist? Do you not support welfare or disability support systems? You object to police/fire services being in common? You don't like sorta universal healthcare? Youtube ministers notwithstanding, how would you improve Canada by making it "less" socialist?
 

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Pronouns
She/Her/Her
What IS Gods kin-dom?

I like kin-dom better. Takes the hierarchy out of it, which is where I think hierarchy belongs. Reversed, backwards, the smallest and least looked after first. Elderly, children, marginalized groups get first dibs; the rest of us are last.
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
You wish ----the workers who really worked all day were really pissed at the fact that the workers hired last would get the same pay for less hours ---and the owner promised the first workers a days wage --the last workers he didn't promise any wage --he said he would pay them what is right ------

It was out of the graciousness of his heart that the owner payed everyone the same wage
-----not because he had to ---the workers hired first were expecting that their pay would be hire than the last group and they got what they were promised for the day ------the last workers were waiting to hear what they were getting and were elated to get a full days pay while the others did nothing but complain to the owner about what just happened ----- the owner tells the first group to take what is theirs and leave -----
 

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Pronouns
She/Her/Her
You wish ----the workers who really worked all day were really pissed at the fact that the workers hired last would get the same pay for less hours ---and the owner promised the first workers a days wage --the last workers he didn't promise any wage --he said he would pay them what is right ------

It was out of the graciousness of his heart that the owner payed everyone the same wage
-----not because he had to ---the workers hired first were expecting that their pay would be hire than the last group and they got what they were promised for the day ------the last workers were waiting to hear what they were getting and were elated to get a full days pay while the others did nothing but complain to the owner about what just happened ----- the owner tells the first group to take what is theirs and leave -----

And it should be out of the graciousness of a society's heart that they wish that everyone should have a guaranteed minimum/living wage. This passage is the frigging poster child for socialism, for Pete's sake?
 

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Pronouns
She/Her/Her
unsafe, I don't care if you or anyone "cherry picks" passages to support your POV. Just pick the right ones?
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
What I support BetteTheRed is that Jesus was not a Socialist -----and He did not support it ----people are wrongly dividing the word of God in my view when it comes to saying Jesus was a socialist and He taught same --- that is my view ---
 

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Pronouns
She/Her/Her
But he didn't support capitalism, or democracy, or any of other modern "isms", because he couldn't have foretold modern society. But he was clearly, clearly, more into supporting those left behind - widows, orphans, prostitutes, etc. - than otherwise, agreed?
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
BetteTheRed ----you said ------how would you improve Canada by making it "less" socialist?

Simple ----Go back to following what Jesus was really teaching -------TRUST God not humankind or Governments to supply all your needs ---Socialism is man made --it does not come from God ---my view
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
He clearly wants His Followers to care for the poor and downtroddened that is for sure -----but here is the thing ----when one is called to look after the poor ---God will supply what is needed for the person to look after the poor ----and that is how I see that ------

The Good Samaritan ---was able to look after all the needs of the injured person ------God will never give us a task that He won't supply what is needed to do it ----- that is what I believe -----and what I have experienced ---I have never once yet had to worry that I would not be able to help someone cause i didn't have the means -----I trust God to provide what I need ------and I haven't been disappointed yet -
 

unsafe

Well-Known Member
He clearly wants His Followers to care for the poor and downtroddened that is for sure -----but here is the thing ----when one is called to look after the poor ---God will supply what is needed for the person to look after the poor ----and that is how I see that ------

The Good Samaritan ---was able to look after all the needs of the injured person ------God will never give us a task that He won't supply what is needed to do it ----- that is what I believe -----and what I have experienced ---I have never once yet had to worry that I would not be able to help someone cause i didn't have the means -----I trust God to provide what I need ------and I haven't been disappointed yet -
 

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Pronouns
She/Her/Her
BetteTheRed ----you said ------how would you improve Canada by making it "less" socialist?

Simple ----Go back to following what Jesus was really teaching -------TRUST God not humankind or Governments to supply all your needs ---Socialism is man made --it does not come from God ---my view

OK, but why did God command the earliest Christians, in Acts, to look after every member, in true Socialist fashion? I don't understand why you don't take literally those passages in Acts that describe a society that clearly had "socialist" underpinnings - i.e. everyone pooled their resources and made sure everyone had enough? Why does your thinking lead you away from looking after your poor/underprivileged neighbour? It confuses me that you take some things very literally, and other commands (like love all of your neighbours as yourself) somewhat more loosely?
 

Waterfall

Well-Known Member
I like kin-dom better. Takes the hierarchy out of it, which is where I think hierarchy belongs. Reversed, backwards, the smallest and least looked after first. Elderly, children, marginalized groups get first dibs; the rest of us are last.
As I stated above in one of my posts to Rev. John that is exactly how I described Gods Kingdom, or however one prefers to describe it, the question I asked was what system describes that?
 
Top