What Christians should know about Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism

[Ransom]

Nameless said:

Maybe I wanna know about socialism, communism, or capitalism, you arrogant . . .

Oh well. Nice knowing you.

I could have posted as "gladiator" and some would have . . .

. . . asked, "LOL, who?"

 

[Izdaari]

FWIW, I am monergistic, though in the Lutheran way rather than the Calvinist way.

And I do believe the Bible is the word of God, though not the words of God (He did not dictate it, nor is any translation perfect), or the Word of God (the Word is Jesus, not the Bible).

I'm not sure I understand (had to wait till T-bone left to admit that ).  You're right that the Word is Jesus and not the Bible.  I would say that the Bible contains that words of God, but not everything in the Bible is from Him.  What exactly do you mean by the Bible being the word of God, though? 

I'm guessing this has something to do with God's inspiration?  Please expound.

Monergistic means we come to God because He draws us to Himself, not on our own initiative, because in our fallen state we are really not capable of wanting to love Him without Him taking the initiative.

The Bible is the word of God, in that it is what God needs us to know, and He inspired godly men (and perhaps women - we do not know all the authors, of some of the NT epistles in particular) to write it. It is not the words of God, because He didn't dictate it, but allowed those He inspired to put the thoughts He gave them into their own words. But even if in some cases, He did give them the exact words, no translation is ever perfect. So, while we have the word of God, we do not have the exact words of God.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Nameless]....  I could have posted as "gladiator" and some would have recognized me...[/quote]


I'm sorry that Vineyard's version of Christianity contributed to the state of agnostic existence you seem to be in now.  I kept your dad in my home.  He seemed like a very good man.  I pray that you return to a state of faith that acknowledges God has revealed Himself in His infallible word.

 

[Nameless]

I'm sorry that Vineyard's version of Christianity contributed to the state of agnostic existence you seem to be in now.  I kept your dad in my home.  He seemed like a very good man.  I pray that you return to a state of faith that acknowledges God has revealed Himself in His infallible word.

Thanks.  Even though I disagree with your last statement, I honestly appreciate your concern. 

When I was in Iraq in 2008, I wanted to learn as much about Islam as I could so as to better understand the Sunni Muslim men I worked very closely with over there.  I had many long discussions with my personal interpreter, Frank, about religion and he gave me a wealth of valuable information that helped me build rapport with my Iraqi friends.  One day I questioned him about Muhammad's nine year old wife and suggested that if he tried to marry a nine year old today he'd be imprisoned even in muslim countries.  Frank immediately turned his head to the sky and began to pray to Allah on my behalf, declaring "forgive him, he doesn't know what he's saying, he doesn't know what he's saying!"  Of course I don't agree with Frank, but it really touched me that he was so concerned on my behalf and I knew then that he was more than my interpreter, but a true friend, which he is to this day. 

You're right, of course, about Vineyard and the affect he and his lackey's had on me at Windsor Hills, but I don't feel it's hurt my faith at all.  I came to a point where I had to rethink everything I'd been taught and determine for myself what I believe, and I suppose I still am, but I've never lost faith in God.  As to your last statement, I actually do believe that God's Word is infallible - I just don't believe the Bible is God's Word   Still, I appreciate your kindness and concern. 

 

[Nameless]

FWIW, I am monergistic, though in the Lutheran way rather than the Calvinist way.

And I do believe the Bible is the word of God, though not the words of God (He did not dictate it, nor is any translation perfect), or the Word of God (the Word is Jesus, not the Bible).

Monergistic means we come to God because He draws us to Himself, not on our own initiative, because in our fallen state we are really not capable of wanting to love Him without Him taking the initiative.

The Bible is the word of God, in that it is what God needs us to know, and He inspired godly men (and perhaps women - we do not know all the authors, of some of the NT epistles in particular) to write it. It is not the words of God, because He didn't dictate it, but allowed those He inspired to put the thoughts He gave them into their own words. But even if in some cases, He did give them the exact words, no translation is ever perfect. So, while we have the word of God, we do not have the exact words of God.

I guess I'm monergistic.  That's nice to know   I certainly love God because He loves me and proved that to me during the time in my life when I was searching for the truth and rethinking everything I'd been taught. 

Still not on board with the Bible, because I believe there are more errors than simply improper translations and, as you said, we don't know many of the authors. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Nameless]I didn't mention other economic systems because all others are variations of these three.[/quote]

Not really.

[quote author=Nameless]As far as the point system, it was the best way I could think to show that some passages of scripture support the ideals of communism, others support those of socialism and still others support those of capitalism.  I was simply taking a tally of these in order to make my next point.  If you have a better way of doing this or a more specific objection as to why you don't like it, I'd love to hear it. [/quote]

Yeah...but you cherry picked the passages and, in turn, ignored a lot of much more relevant passages (e.g. Jubilee, property redemption rights). Not only that, but your principles you derived were often completely out of context and not just wrong, but badly wrong.

Furthermore, your points are awarded on a completely arbitrary manner that only have a basis in your preconceived notions.

You also labelled all the capitalist points as "cheap" or "controversial" in order to diminish these points (which I don't even necessarily agree with). If you are going to compare the three systems, you really ought to treat them all fairly. As it is, you are (poorly) comparing the strengths of one system to the weaknesses of another system.

 

[Nameless]

Not only that, but your principles you derived were often completely out of context and not just wrong, but badly wrong.

No need to back this statement up.  You're a seasoned veteran on this forum while I'm just a noob who's already garnished a bad rep, so I'm sure everyone will just take your word for it. 

Furthermore, your points are awarded on a completely arbitrary manner that only have a basis in your preconceived notions.

Thus the "Tony Realiesque" remark.  But, alas, that was cut from the abbreviated article as well and if you don't watch "Around the Horn" on ESPN you wouldn't understand anyway.  Basically, I can only speak for myself and that's what I did when it came to the points.  Take all your OT property rights and jubilee verses and come up with your own point tally if you care that much about it.  You can throw in the verses I used as well and I've actually got a lot more I didn't use for sake of space. 

You also labelled all the capitalist points as "cheap" or "controversial" in order to diminish these points (which I don't even necessarily agree with). If you are going to compare the three systems, you really ought to treat them all fairly. As it is, you are (poorly) comparing the strengths of one system to the weaknesses of another system.

I called some of the socialist points controversial as well, and threw out one of the communist arguments altogether despite it having three passages in support (Matt. 21:12-14, Mark 11:15, John 2:14-16).  I could say a lot more about this one, but what's the point?  If you don't have the time to read the full second point of the article (the link was included with the original post), then why would you have time to read it now if I rewrite it all here? 

Suffice it to say, the second main point was not comparing the strengths of the systems against each other, but rather was comparing the systems to Christ's actions and teachings.  If you'd like to continue this discussion, I would suggest you at least skim over the second point of my full article. 

 

[Nameless]

what history book did nameless gain his knowledge

Talking to ourselves again, are we?

 

[Nameless]

what history book did nameless gain his knowledge

Talking to ourselves again, are we?

question too hard

thought so


tanks for reminding me to avoid you

So I was talking to myself the other day and I asked myself- "self, where are we?"  And myself replied "I don't know, but at least I'm not alone". 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Nameless]I didn't mention other economic systems because all others are variations of these three.

Not really.

Gee, thanks!  I never thought about it that way.  I totally see your point![/quote]

No, really.

Feudalism, Distributionism, Georgism, and Mutualism are just a few of the systems that you failed to take into account. And they are all relatively unique.

[quote author=Nameless]I only used passages in which Jesus was literally speaking and I made that clear in the full version.  Even if you only read this abbreviated version, you'd see I took all of my passages from the gospels and if you looked at the brief descriptions you wouldn't have to be a rocket scientologist to see that they're all verses in which Christ was speaking.  Jubilee doesn't fall into that category and the only verses on property rights that do (from what I could find) are John 10:11-13 and Matthew 12:29, which would probably be the weakest arguments about property rights in the Bible.[/quote]


Yes, and this is a ridiculous way of reading the Bible.

[quote author=Nameless]Jubilee and the property rights laws that are included in the Torah are statutes of Judaism rather than Christianity anyway, and the title of my article was "What Christians need to know about Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism" not "What Christians, Jews, Muslims and all other religions need to know about Communism, Socialism, Capitalism and all other economic systems".  Let's face it, people are accusing me of using LSD as it is.  If that was the title of my article, I couldn't help but agree with them. 

I think it's to your own discredit, btw, that since you're bringing in examples outside of Christ's teachings (and particularly those dealing with property rights) that you mentioned those Old Testament laws which Jesus made clear are no longer in effect for Christians, but failed to mention Acts 4:32-35 and Acts 2:42-47 which are both examples of how the early Christians lived and conducted themselves.  I actually wrote a paragraph on those verses for the full version of my article but cut it as I was looking for ways to make the article shorter. [/quote]

Again...horrible way to read the Bible. What you are advocating for is the type of Marcionism-lite that is so prevalant among many Christians today.

The Torah, all those OT laws....Christ is their fulfillment. Jubilee, the freeing of slaves, kinsmen redeemers....what do you think those things are teaching us?

Christ was (and is) a Jew...you can't discount the Torah when you try to analyze His teachings. In other words, if you want to provide an exegetical interpretation regarding the Christ's views on economic policy, you have to consider Jubilee, Levitical property rights, and the prevailing culture of the time in order to even understand the context into which He was speaking.

(Additionally, I haven't even given my opinion regarding economics so you have no idea how strongly (or not) the Acts passages weigh in my own personal viewpoints. I've just been telling you why your particular analytical methodology is flawed. Showing how you are ignoring parts of Scripture that are explicitly referring to divine commandments regarding economic systems was sufficient for my purposes.)

[quote author=Nameless][quote author=rsc2a]

Not only that, but your principles you derived were often completely out of context and not just wrong, but badly wrong.

[/quote]

No need to back this statement up.  You're a seasoned veteran on this forum while I'm just a noob who's already garnished a bad rep, so I'm sure everyone will just take your word for it.  [/quote]

Actually, many probably consider me close to a heretic, but pretty much everyone would agree when you take the "sell everything you own and follow me" command and apply the particular command universally without even considering the why (i.e. the priniciple) for the command, you're off in left field.

[quote author=Nameless][quote author=rsc2a]

Furthermore, your points are awarded on a completely arbitrary manner that only have a basis in your preconceived notions.

[/quote]

Thus the "Tony Realiesque" remark.  But, alas, that was cut from the abbreviated article as well and if you don't watch "Around the Horn" on ESPN you wouldn't understand anyway.  Basically, I can only speak for myself and that's what I did when it came to the points.  Take all your OT property rights and jubilee verses and come up with your own point tally if you care that much about it.  You can throw in the verses I used as well and I've actually got a lot more I didn't use for sake of space. [/quote]

Sure...you can only speak for yourself. That is obvious. But to rip verses completely out of context, and derive "truth" from them based on a flawed interpretation is my objection. If you look at the verses you selected in context, you'd throw half of them out as not saying anything about economics, you'd select other verses that don't explicitly talk about economics but have clear economic principles.

If you did this, analyzed the passages in their context, then formed your conclusions,  I have no problem with the fact that you are selecting points based on  your own reasoning. It's the fact that you've determined how the points should be awarded then gamed the system (via poor interpretation) so that your "team" wins.

[quote author=Nameless]I called some of the socialist points controversial as well, and threw out one of the communist arguments altogether despite it having three passages in support (Matt. 21:12-14, Mark 11:15, John 2:14-16).  I could say a lot more about this one, but what's the point?  If you don't have the time to read the full second point of the article (the link was included with the original post), then why would you have time to read it now if I rewrite it all here?  [/quote]

Yet every time you awarded a capitalist point, you added the qualifier. (I checked.) That's a key difference.

And I have read the article. It's decent. But the objections I have stated are severe enough where the value of the article is severely diminished.

[quote author=Nameless]Suffice it to say, the second main point was not comparing the strengths of the systems against each other, but rather was comparing the systems to Christ's actions and teachings.  If you'd like to continue this discussion, I would suggest you at least skim over the second point of my full article. [/quote]

1 - You can't talk about "Christ's actions and teachings" and then discount the OT.
2 - Your interpretation regarding His teachings is dependent on your bias (eisegesis) instead of your interpretation being dependent on the context (exegesis.)
3 - Whether you realize it or not, you were comparing systems. Furthermore, you were comparing the strengths of one with the weakness of another.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Nameless]

You're right, of course, about Vineyard and the affect he and his lackey's had on me at Windsor Hills, but I don't feel it's hurt my faith at all.  I came to a point where I had to rethink everything I'd been taught and determine for myself what I believe, and I suppose I still am, but I've never lost faith in God.[/quote]

What is the basis and philosophical framework by which you filter and arrive at truth?

  As to your last statement, I actually do believe that God's Word is infallible - I just don't believe the Bible is God's Word   Still, I appreciate your kindness and concern.

On what grounds do you ascertain the validity of your choice of "God's word"?  What is "God's word"?  How do you know what His word is?

 

[Nameless]

No, really.

Feudalism, Distributionism, Georgism, and Mutualism are just a few of the systems that you failed to take into account. And they are all relatively unique.

Dude, you had me at "not really". 

Ok, I'll concede this point.  Feudalism isn't a form of any of the others.  Of course it's completely outdated, but whatever.  Distributionism and Georgism are forms of mixed economies where capitalism is regulated to some extent.  Mutualism is right in there between socialism and communism. 

Jubilee, the freeing of slaves, kinsmen redeemers....what do you think those things are teaching us?

That being free from the old laws of the Torah is a lot more fun than being subjected to them. 

Christ was (and is) a Jew...you can't discount the Torah when you try to analyze His teachings. In other words, if you want to provide an exegetical interpretation regarding the Christ's views on economic policy, you have to consider Jubilee, Levitical property rights, and the prevailing culture of the time in order to even understand the context into which He was speaking.

Not really.

(Additionally, I haven't even given my opinion regarding economics so you have no idea how strongly (or not) the Acts passages weigh in my own personal viewpoints. I've just been telling you why your particular analytical methodology is flawed. Showing how you are ignoring parts of Scripture that are explicitly referring to divine commandments regarding economic systems was sufficient for my purposes.)

Understood.  I actually haven't given my opinion of what the best economic system is either, but that hasn't stopped you from accusing me of being anti-capitalist, so I guess we're even. 

As far as those divine commandments regarding economic systems go, understand you're talking about laws that were included in the judicial rule-book that prohibited the eating of pork (a rule which God later commanded Peter to break) and adultery (a law which Jesus undermined at least twice - John 4:1-30 and John 8:7).

Actually, many probably consider me close to a heretic, but pretty much everyone would agree when you take the "sell everything you own and follow me" command and apply the particular command universally without even considering the why (i.e. the priniciple) for the command, you're off in left field.

Hmm.  Not sure how I feel about conversing with a heretic.  I don't want everyone to start getting ideas about me.  And by "everyone" I mean the eight other people on here besides us (nine if you include Ivanette). 

I did consider the why, though, and mentioned it in the full article.  "You see, Jesus gave this advice in response to a rich man who was asking what good thing he could do to have eternal life; and he gave it only after first rebuking him for asking the question and then telling him to follow the ten commandments in a scene reminiscent of His Matthew 3 sermon on the Mount (those who have ears to hear let them hear)."  I'll further clarify that Jesus was explaining to the man that there was no good thing he could do to earn eternal life.   

[quote author=rsc2a]

Sure...you can only speak for yourself. That is obvious. But to rip verses completely out of context, and derive "truth" from them based on a flawed interpretation is my objection. If you look at the verses you selected in context, you'd throw half of them out as not saying anything about economics, you'd select other verses that don't explicitly talk about economics but have clear economic principles.

Ok.  Here's the thing.  I compared the principles upon which the systems are based in my second main point (the one with the Bible passages).  This was a setup for my third point which was a comparison of how oppressive the systems are when they are implemented.  You don't seem to be getting this.

Up until now, you've been judging my critique of the systems in my second point based upon their implementation, but that's not what my critique was about there. 

Here's what i did.  Don't judge me.  (J/K, I want you to judge me - that's the whole point)
I determined that the prinicples upon which communism are based are equality, unity, unselfishness, generosity and

 

[Nameless]

What is the basis and philosophical framework by which you filter and arrive at truth?

Does there have to be just one thing that can't be compared against anything else?  "The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork."  There are such things as scientific, mathematical, or historical truths which can be arrived at through rational thought, experimental testing and physical evidence.  If there are specific details in the Bible about history, geography, science, etc. there are often ways to verify them.  There are many other things that cannot be verified, and even if you believe the Bible is the word of God, you must believe them based on faith alone, which is not in and of itself truth.  Therefore, we both really filter and arrive at truth the same way.  The biggest difference between us is that you would call some things that you cannot verify truth, but I would not.  I would not call my faith a fact, regardless of what Hebrews 11 says (and regardless of who wrote it). 

On what grounds do you ascertain the validity of your choice of "God's word"?  What is "God's word"?  How do you know what His word is?

By definition, God's word would mean the same thing that your word means.  Your word is what you say.  God's word is what He says.  If Jesus is the Son of God (as we believe) and spoke for God, what He said/says is God's word, which is why He is often referred to as God's Word in the Bible. 
Speaking factually, the only real way to determine beyond a shadow of a doubt if something is God's Word would be to literally hear Him speak.  Apart from that, there is only faith, and faith is not fact.